Labour's muddled message
Photo by Peter Byrne -.
Rachel Reeves is not where she wanted to be. When the Chancellor announced winter fuel payment cuts almost a year ago they were designed to advertise her strength. In order to restore economic stability, ran the narrative, Reeves would venture where previous governments feared to tread (David Cameron repeatedly rejected Tory demands to means-test pensioner benefits).
Wonks applauded her taboo-busting. Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, whose book, Follow the Money, Reeves is fond of, praised the move as 'sensible'. The aim, No 11 said at the time, was to display discipline not just to the bond market but to voters (who often doubt Labour's economic competence).
Yet now, as Reeves' slow-motion U-turn continues, she is advertising her weakness. A government that has held office for less than a year and that has a majority of 165 seats has proved incapable of making a cut worth just 0.05 per cent of GDP (£1.4bn).
The new assertion from No 10 is that an improving economy – growth of 0.7 per cent in the first quarter – has made such munificence possible. Keir Starmer doesn't quite channel Ronald Reagan by declaring that it is 'morning again in Britain' but the suggestion is that the country is turning a corner – with four interest rate cuts and three trade deals.
The problem is how grim the situation remains. Debt, as Treasury aides continually point out, stands at 95.5 per cent of GDP (0.7 per cent higher than a year ago). Here is why Reeves is imposing real-terms spending cuts on unprotected departments (Angela Rayner and Yvette Cooper, defending housing and the police respectively, have yet to settle with the Chancellor). During a press conference yesterday, Reeves conceded that there were 'good things I've had to say no to'.
But as a consequence, Labour critics complain, the government's message is muddled. After entering office it promised short-term pain for long-term gain. 'Things will get worse before they get better,' warned Starmer. 'If we cannot afford it, we cannot do it,' declared Reeves (an inversion of JM Keynes' 'anything we can actually do, we can afford').
Some, including cabinet ministers, were sceptical of this strategy from the start, fearing that it would fail to resonate with an austerity-weary electorate that craved hope, not despair. But it was at least coherent. It pointed towards several tax-raising Budgets and fiscal restraint before a midterm or pre-election loosening.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
Yet now the government finds itself in a political no-man's land. It can find the money to U-turn on winter fuel payment cuts, to (most likely) abolish the two-child benefit limit and to keep its election tax pledges. But it cannot find the money to prevent renewed departmental cuts and to commit to spending 3 per cent of GDP on defence (even as Starmer speaks of the UK moving to 'war-fighting readiness'). Voters could be forgiven for being confused, and almost certainly are.
Reeves will have to use this autumn's Budget to raise taxes – the only question is by how much. One former aide to Gordon Brown notes the 'madness of spending lots at the start and less at the end of a parliament'.
Some in Labour believe Reeves' defining error will prove to be her refusal to increase income tax, VAT or National Insurance on employees ('that's the original sin as far as I'm concerned,' says one source). This has left the government reliant on small but often fraught revenue raisers (such as higher inheritance tax on farmers).
But there's a bigger challenge for Reeves: what kind of Chancellor does she ultimately want to be? She could have been the 'Iron Chancellor' – refusing to yield on her tough choices (such as winter fuel cuts). Or she could have been the 'anti-austerity Chancellor' – raising taxes to prevent renewed cuts. Or she could have been the 'growth Chancellor' – taking big risks for big rewards.
In practice, Reeves has been all of these at various points without ever settling on an identity. The Chancellor herself defines her approach as 'balanced'. But the risk is that voters simply see it as incoherent.
This piece first appeared in the Morning Call newsletter; receive it every morning by subscribing on Substack here
[See also: Can John Healey really afford to go to war?]
Related
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
18 minutes ago
- The National
This result shows the time has arrived for make-or-break move for SNP
We didn't need Professor Curtice to highlight that SNP fortunes haven't improved since the General Election. It was readily apparent to anyone who followed this SNP leadership contesting Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse as a supposed party of 'independence' and yet not relying on it to garner support. At a time when national polling for independence is reckoned to hover around 54%, Swinney's SNP managed to garner just 12% support from Hamilton's electorate (only 29% of those who actually voted). Doesn't this prove beyond any doubt he and his party are getting it woefully wrong? At a time when the independence movement is straining at the leash for real campaigning political leadership, itching to get the campaign into full swing, hasn't the SNP's campaign chief, Jamie Hepburn, signalled indy being kicked down the road once again when in Laura Pollock's report (June 6) he states: 'Next year, we're going into a General Election for the Scottish Parliament ... the fundamental question will be who's forming the next government ... who's going to be the next first minister ... either John Swinney or Anas Sarwar.' READ MORE: Patrick Harvie: Increased UK defence spending only makes war more likely There we have it. This SNP's clear intention is to just play regional politics, presumably to secure their own positions, rather than fight the 2026 election as the de facto referendum the movement demands and the polls suggest the public desires. I suspect the new strategy SNP may be heading towards claiming that the de facto referendum should be at the next General Election and promising to make it so ... just as long as we elect them to Holyrood next year so they can 'deliver' it. Well, let's head that one off at the pass. If 2026 is ignored as the legitimate platform for Scots to determine their national status, or fail to force the referendum our democratic rights deserve, then who doubts the SNP will be soundly defeated and the independence movement will need to start from scratch to fight for independence without them; trust in the SNP decimated and Scotland's independence prospects truly parked for another generation – victory for the Unionists? If Keir Starmer, as seems likely, is about to scapegoat Rachel Reeves to secure his position, isn't it time for the SNP to scapegoat their current leader and his influencers in order to elect a leader in time for 2026 who has independence at heart, has the drive to deliver it and can persuade 54% and rising of Scots that they can do so? Hasn't the Hamilton election result shown the time has arrived for, if no serious independence leadership and drive for it, then no SNP? Jim Taylor Scotland THE loss of the Hamilton by-election to the risibly inept 'Scottish' Labour – a party so devoid of ideas it could barely muster a coherent manifesto – is not merely a setback. It is a catastrophe of the SNP's own making, a fiasco that reeks of complacency, strategic idiocy and the kind of centrist dithering that has come to define John Swinney's leadership. This was an entirely avoidable humiliation. Instead of seizing the moment – with independence support now at a formidable sum – Swinney, that master of inertia, chose to dither. His response? A pledge to wait until 75% of Scots beg for freedom before lifting a finger. One wonders if he imagines history's great emancipators –Washington, Bolívar, even the wretched Garibaldi – paused to consult focus groups before acting. When Starmer, that most unctuous of Westminster careerists, declared he would block any independence referendum, Swinney's silence was deafening. Not a word of defiance, not a hint of resistance to the colonial farce of Section 30. Instead, he opted to align with Labour – a party whose sole distinction from Reform is a marginally more polished veneer of hypocrisy. Both are Unionist to the core, united in their mission to siphon Scotland's wealth southward while offering nothing but condescension in return. The campaign itself was a masterclass in misdirection. Rather than rallying the independence movement with a bold vision, Swinney fixated on Reform – as if thwarting Nigel Farage's band of reactionary clowns was the defining struggle of Scottish nationalism. The result? A muddled, defensive mess that left voters uninspired and Labour undeservedly triumphant. Worse still, Swinney has perpetuated the worst excesses of the Sturgeon era: the cult of secrecy, the slavish deference to corporate interests (see: Flamingo Land's desecration of Loch Lomond) and the systematic sidelining of anyone with a spine. Sturgeon's legacy was to ensure that no competent successor could emerge – only loyalists and mediocrities, of which Swinney is the apotheosis. The truth is stark: the SNP have no plan for independence. No strategy beyond grovelling to Westminster for permission to hold a vote – a humiliation masquerading as diplomacy. It is a spectacle so pitiful it verges on self-parody. Swinney must go. Not with a whimper, but with the swift, decisive exit his failures demand. The independence movement deserves leaders who grasp that freedom is seized, not negotiated – and who possess the courage to act accordingly. Until then, the SNP's decline will continue, and Scotland's potential will remain shackled by the timid and the unimaginative. Alan Hinnrichs Dundee
The National
18 minutes ago
- The National
As a Western Isles councillor, I've seen the value of unity
Labour's narrow victory – 8559 votes to our 7957, with Reform UK's 7088 nipping at our heels – shows what happens when the independence movement is divided. As a councillor for Comhairle nan Eilean Siar, I see daily the struggles of our communities, from the cost of living crisis to the strain on our NHS and the erosion of our island economies. These are not just local woes; they are the direct result of a Union that fails us and worsens our challenges. I call on all pro-independence forces – SNP, Alba, Liberation Scotland, Salvo and every Yes activist across our land – to unite urgently. We must make the 2026 Holyrood election a clear mandate for independence, a moment to seize the powers we need to build a fairer, stronger Scotland. READ MORE: Patrick Harvie: Increased UK defence spending only makes war more likely From the Western Isles to the central belt, Scots are crying out for change. Westminster's grip denies us the ability to protect our public services, revive our communities or harness our vast resources – our renewables, our fisheries, our land – for the benefit of all. Independence is not just a dream; it's the practical solution to these crises. A sovereign Scotland could invest in our ferries, bolster our schools and ensure no-one in our islands or beyond is left behind by poverty or neglect. But we cannot achieve this if we stand apart. Unity is our greatest asset. Our history, rooted in a shared commitment to community and collective effort, teaches us that when Scots come together, we can reshape our future. In the Western Isles, we know the power of working as one – whether it's saving our crofts or fighting for our Gaelic culture. The 2014 Yes campaign showed what's possible when we unite for a common cause, inspiring a million voices to demand self-determination. Yet, the Hamilton result proves that division hands victory to those who thrive on our disunity – Westminster's establishment and the divisive rhetoric of parties like Reform UK. If we let our votes splinter in 2026, we risk losing our chance to break free. I urge all pro-independence groups to come together now, in a spirit of shared purpose. Let's convene a summit, a Constitutional Convention like the one the SNP called for in 2023, to forge a united strategy for 2026. Together, we can rally the 44% who still back independence and win over those who've lost faith – voters who turned to Labour or stayed home, frustrated by politics as usual. We must show them that independence means real change: a Scotland where our wealth serves every community, where our resources lift up the many, not the few, and where our decisions are made here, not in London. Picture a united campaign in 2026, where every pro-independence vote counts toward a majority that Westminster cannot dismiss. A Holyrood election won decisively by our movement could force a referendum or empower us to begin negotiations for independence. This is not about one party; it's about a nation standing together, as we have before, to demand a future where fairness and opportunity define us. The Union is failing us. It starves our services, ignores our voices, and deepens inequality. But together, we can change that. Our shared resolve, born of a history that values community and equity, can make 2026 the year we take back control. Let's unite, plan and fight for a Scotland that answers to its people. Cllr Gordon Murray Comhairle nan Eilean Siar LIKE most readers of this newspaper, I was very surprised to learn of Labour's win in Hamilton. Their UK-wide polling and comments from John Swinney had led me to expect them contesting second place with Reform. It's a crumb of comfort that Reform 'only' came third. The disconnect between the SNP and independence supporters has been exposed even more starkly which their leaders will only ignore at their peril. Numbers can be boring but also intuitive so please bear with me. The following facts have not been highlighted. The turnout for the election was only 44.2% so the actual percentages of the electorate votes cast which the first three parties received were: Labour (31.6%) 13.9%, SNP (29.4%) 13.0%, Reform (26.1%) 11.6%. When polling indicates roughly half of our population supporting independence (currently slightly more), the fact that only 13% of the Hamilton electorate bothered to go and vote for the principal party of independence, the SNP, is hugely significant. Our independence movement is in crisis without an obvious party for us to rally behind to take us forward. Alba's point about the Greens standing and thus robbing the SNP of victory assumes that those who voted Green would have actively voted SNP instead. This is quite some assumption given that only 13% actively voted SNP. For me, though, the major point is the unsatisfactory and again discredited first-past-the-post electoral system which elects the biggest minority with total power. Who can justify a party 'winning' a seat with only 13.9% support from the electorate? It is little wonder people are becoming disillusioned with our electoral system. Reform would have 'won' with only 2.3% more people voting for them! Who said that for evil to prevail all that was required was for good people to do nothing? Let's find a fairer system while we still can. Campbell Anderson Edinburgh AFTER defeat by Labour in Hamilton, as an SNP member I'm asking, will the leadership of the SNP now realise that Scottish independence will only be achieved by a united movement of all groups and begin to join with the other like-minded to put our differences behind us and work together? Other independence movements have had factions, but they resolved to put aside their differences, achieve independence and then resolve them. This is the ONLY way, as divided movements don't win at anything. Let's get together and form a pro-independence alliance. Graham Smith Arbroath Perhaps John Swinney will wake up now. The over 50% of folk who didn't vote in Hamilton are probably languishing in child poverty. Why aren't they voting for independence? Why aren't they voting for the only truly socialist party in Scotland? Perhaps they would prefer the collapse of democracy and a dictatorship. Perhaps they would like The National to be banned. Compulsory voting as practised in Australia might be the answer. Tony Kime Kelso KEIR Starmer's latest rhetoric about putting the UK on a 'war footing' and boosting the economy through fast-tracked weapons and submarine programmes is alarming. While families across the UK are struggling with the cost of living, underfunded public services and chronic housing insecurity, the political priority appears to be a renewed arms race. Are Trump's fingerprints all over this latest development? This is not about genuine defence or security – it is political theatre. With around 17 ageing submarines already languishing in storage at Rosyth and Devonport, awaiting decommissioning at great cost to the taxpayer, the suggestion of accelerating new production looks less like strategic planning and more like an attempt to curry favour with the defence lobby and right-wing voters ahead of a future election. What's more, this posturing comes at a time when the UK has conspicuously failed to speak or act forcefully against the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. If our government can mobilise billions for submarines, why can it not marshal the same urgency and resourcefulness to uphold international law and human rights? There is no 'money tree' for nurses, teachers or social care – but apparently, there is one for military expansion. We are told this is about 'economic growth', yet militarised growth rarely benefits ordinary people. It creates profit for arms manufacturers, not food for children. The public should not be asked to accept an ever more militarised national agenda, especially when it comes at the expense of both domestic welfare and our moral standing on the world stage. The UK must not drift, without scrutiny, toward a war economy while turning its back on justice abroad and fairness at home. It causes the utmost despair to be shackled to this distant Parliament which does not have the best interests of the Scottish People in mind. Starmer may not play the Churchill card to boost his tanking premiership. Peter Macari Aberdeen
The Guardian
25 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on Scottish politics: Labour wins the seat but not – yet – the argument
Labour's victory in the Holyrood byelection offers the UK government a rare political comfort but not, perhaps, the strategic breakthrough it might like to imagine. A late flurry of welfare signalling, a dogged ground campaign and a carefully staged visit to a Govan shipyard by Sir Keir Starmer helped shore up Labour's appeal to its traditional voters in Scotland's industrial belt. Yet as Prof John Curtice has noted, Labour's share of the vote actually declined compared with the last time voters cast ballots here in 2021 – a year in which the party was placed a distant third and was polling at the same dismal level of public support, 20%, it has today. The prime minister will gladly pocket Davy Russell's win in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse. But it is a foothold. There is still a steep climb to the summit. More telling is who lost. The Scottish National party's poor showing reflects dissatisfaction with its record of governance and the diminishing appeal of independence in areas where Labour has deep roots. The real surprise was Reform UK, taking over a quarter of the vote and leapfrogging the Conservatives into third place. It drew from both main parties, fuelled by protest and unionist anger that flattened the Tories. If these trends continue, the Holyrood elections, scheduled for next year, will not be good news for anyone but Reform despite the party losing its chair Zia Yusuf this week. Labour is not yet credible as a government-in-waiting at Holyrood. But for the SNP the crisis is more acute. If its vote remains around 30% and opposition is split at the next election, the SNP would probably remain the largest party, but would be unlikely to bestride the Scottish parliament. The pro‑independence movement would be institutionally endangered, not by Westminster suppression, but by electoral mathematics. Scottish politicians have long held the belief that Nigel Farage has less sway in a pro-EU, pro‑immigration nation. That is now harder to sustain. On the campaign trail, Mr Farage defended a race‑baiting Reform advert that twisted Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar's words to suggest he had divided loyalties – a textbook use of identity politics to inflame division and resentment. It was a toxic, racist and dishonest dog‑whistle but that did not stop Reform's rise. The Tories face an existential crisis. In 2021 they became the official opposition as the strongest anti‑SNP, pro-unionist option, a strategy that paid off on the regional list. But if Reform keeps eating into that base, Thursday's result suggests the Conservatives could ignominiously fall behind not just Reform, but also the Lib Dems and Greens. With the constitutional question fading and Holyrood designed to favour horse-trading, 2026 looks like yielding a more divided chamber. Coalitions – Labour with the Lib Dems, or even across the divide – could yet emerge to focus on bread-and-butter issues and govern without Reform. Labour won the seat, not the argument. The SNP may still top the poll in 2026 – but as a weaker force in a far less predictable landscape.
