Election mauling means Labour needs to get radical & controversial soon – does the party have the balls to do it?
But does he really understand?
3
3
The Prime Minister insists: 'We must deliver that change even more quickly, we must go even further . . . '
Which sounds a lot like more of the same, chalking up the extraordinary breakthrough of Reform as a mere protest vote that will melt away.
It's a bold reaction to the public telling you that they don't like what they have seen so far, only to tell them they are going to get even more of it even sooner.
Yet the breadth and scale of the Government's pummelling last week should stop that coping mechanism dead in its tracks.
What Thursday's message from the public showed is Plans for Change and policy tinkering is not going to cut it.
Nor are the traditional playbooks of party politics.
Starmer threw the kitchen sink at Nigel Farage, branding him on the eve of polls a Putin puppet who was going to personally bill voters for their hip operations.
Fatal error
Labour screamed, like the Tories tried before them, that Reform were a bunch of lazy cranks that never turned up to Parliament and cannot be trusted to run a whelk stall let alone a council.
But the voters heard it all and thumbed their noses.
Instead they were led by the continued cost-of-living pain after that promised growth failed to ever turn up, and immigration now topping voters' concerns across the country.
Farage promised an earthquake & he delivered - Labour are badly bruised & Tories face being brushed aside as opposition
The Tories borked(?) it, Labour promised change and the public feel like they have been sold a pup.
So why not give the other guys a go?
They can't be any worse than the current or last lot.
Which leaves the Government in a tricky bind — fighting on uncomfortable ground but frankly with very little to lose.
If Labour don't get radical and controversial soon, then they're going to be out on their ear anyway.
What Thursday showed was just how out of touch Westminster is to how hardened public opinion over borders has become, and a classic Westminster tinkering response would be a fatal error.
Fatal error
Sacking a few ministers in a panicked reshuffle is not going to be enough, and those in No10 pinning their hopes on a new immigration White Paper to be published in ten days time should temper expectations.
Yes, there will be some red meat in it, tightening up absurd legal migration rules that allow successful asylum seekers to ship over their families on the taxpayers' tab, but it risks looking like too little too late.
Some close to Starmer get it.
One senior Government source hit back at reports the Education Secretary and Culture Secretary were for the chop, saying: 'Just sacking Bridget Phillipson and Lisa Nandy would be a joke response.'
But Labour MPs from all wings of the party are starting to loudly wonder whether this cautious government has the balls to turn things around.
Hemmed in by a slavish unwillingness to go to war with the international order over migration, the scale of the radicalism required to really change the country goes against the grain of everything this PM believes.
Starmer's enemies on the left have already gone public with their criticisms, which is hardly a surprise given they have been carping almost since the moment he entered office.
But even the most ardent loyalists were reeling from Thursday's bloody nose this weekend, keeping their powder dry publicly, for now, but acutely aware No10 needs a far punchier strategy.
There are real shades of Rishi Sunak's doomed premiership in the predicament that Starmer finds himself in right now.
Inheriting a mess largely not of their own making, no one doubts their technocratic ability but questions always linger over their killer political instinct.
Lofty ideals
Sunak entered Downing Street desperate to keep the show on the road but refusing to countenance bold measures like leaving the European Convention on Human Rights or calling time on various nonsense from the United Nations.
He was constantly accused of not wanting to upset his global elite mates or being too squeamish to pull levers previously thought of as unthinkable, but now being demanded by the anger of the public.
But by the time Sunak woke up to the scale of the problems facing the nation and tried to get radical, especially on migration, it was too late.
A warning for his successor right there.
But can Mr Human Rights, happiest when mingling with his fellow lawyers on the international circuit, really be the one to get his hands dirty and reject the European Court?
The contradiction at the heart of Starmer's premiership is about to play out.
We are about to find out whether the PM's desire for power, to retain it and really use it, trumps the lofty ideals that made him the man he is today.
There's still a fair few years before Starmer has to face all of the voters, and with his massive majority, if any one can rip up the established rules, it is him.
If he doesn't do it, then the person who replaces him will be elected with a mandate to shoot his sacred cows anyway.
The public seem to have woken up to the scale of the response needed — will Sir Keir?
RUMOURS abound that No10 is mulling some dramatic Whitehall changes.
Both Labour peer Maurice Glasman, who has the ear of powerful Downing Street chief Morgan McSweeney, and Jonathan Rutherford, who is advising No10, have both suggested breaking up the Treasury in recent days.
Lord Glasman told the New Statesman: 'I believe the abolition of the Treasury is necessary for our economic renewal. It is an outdated institution at odds with contemporary reality.'
And he called for 'a new economics ministry instead of the Treasury and Business in which priority is given to industry'.
While Rutherford told The House magazine: 'I'd destroy it if I had half the chance. I would split the Treasury, like Harold Wilson, but not in a ministry – I'd put it in No 10 . . . frankly, this is the age of Trump. You've got to start doing stuff.'
With Rachel Reeves letting it be known she would quit before having to scrap her sacred fiscal rules to limit government borrowing, could they be on to something?
Eyebrows have been raised by a senior official from former Cabinet Office boss Pat McFadden's team who has been sent to keep an eye on things at the Treasury, with McFadden tipped to run any emerging super department.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
27 minutes ago
- Spectator
Tories split on Ricky Jones' verdict
The decision to clear Ricky Jones of encouraging violent disorder has not gone down well with many senior politicians. Footage of the suspended Labour councillor went viral last August after he suggested that far-right protesters should have their throats slit. Jones, 58, drew his finger across his throat and called demonstrators 'disgusting Nazi fascists'. On Friday, jurors found him not guilty after just half an hour of deliberations. Many were quick to contrast it to the Lucy Connolly case, whereby the wife of a Tory politician was jailed for 31 months during the Southport riots after writing 'set fire to all the… hotels [housing asylum seekers]… for all I care'. Some senior Conservatives certainly see it this way. Chris Philp, the Shadow Home Secretary, made that comparison explicit, writing that 'the development of two tier justice is becoming increasingly alarming.' He added that ministers 'must come forward with plans to ensure justice is handed out equally, regardless of the background or views of the perpetrator' but 'this Labour government seems to be quite happy with two tier justice'. His colleague James Cleverly, the Housing spokesman, called the verdict 'unacceptable', writing on X that 'decisions like this are adding to the anger that people feel and amplifying the belief that there isn't a dispassionate criminal justice system'. Clearly, this decision is a controversial one. But there is a crucial difference between the Jones trial and the punishment meted out to Lucy Connolly: she pleaded guilty so she did not receive a jury trial. Had she done so, she might well have been acquitted. Take the case of former Royal Marine Jamie Michael. Charged with stirring up racial hatred after Southport, he was acquitted by his jury after just 17 minutes. It was only five weeks' ago that Robert Jenrick was leading a big campaign against proposals to limit jury trials. For some of his fellow Tories to now rush to condemn them, off the back of one verdict, is an overreaction, given the essential pressure valve they function. All this matters because judicial reform is likely to be a cornerstone of the next government of the right. Kemi Badenoch is reviewing how Britain to leave the European Court of Human Rights; others want her to go much further. The last Tory administration found itself fighting endless battles in the courts, in a fruitless bid to halt illegal migration. Picking the right battles over the right principles is essential if the next government is to avoid repeating that fate.
Wales Online
27 minutes ago
- Wales Online
Could Labour ban VPNs after users dodge online protection laws?
Could Labour ban VPNs after users dodge online protection laws? Some internet users have raised concerns that stricter online safety laws could include VPNs in the future Some internet ueers are concerned their VPNs are under threat (Image: Getty Images) Since Labour introduced new age verifcation methods as part of the Online Safety Act, VPNs have seen an uptick in popularity. Virtual Private Networks help to obscure someone's IP address and can trick a website into thinking someone is connecting from another country. In practice, this allows users to dodge age verification checks from websites that require them under the new laws. However, with the government pushing the controversial rules on sites and emphasising its necessity in protecting children from harm online, many are concerned that this relatively easy way of skirting the checks could be banned. One concerned user on Reddit raised this question and asked whether the government could actually ban VPNs. Difficulties faced in banning VPNs User GenericUser104 wrote in the r/homelab subreddit:"I've recently started using a VPN again. I used one a while back to sail the seas, and now I'm using Proton to get around the Online Safety Act in the UK. Now there's talk of them banning VPNs too. Surely this isn't something they can do—and if it is, how would I put things in place so it won't affect me?" In response, another user highlighted how it would be technically very difficult for the government to implement a ban on VPNs due to their extensive use in business settings as well as person. User hk135 said: "VPN's are used extensively in the Corporate world for remote working, this is where they originated as a means to securely connect to the network at Work or interconnect various offices and sites. "Blanket banning VPN's is a non-starter for corporate reasons. Not just this but also depending on how you define a VPN, if it is encapsulating traffic in an encrypted tunnel, then SSL in general would be covered. Article continues below "What about encrypted connections to Proxy servers, that would redirect traffic as well. The logistics of banning VPNs or even anything that hides (intentional or not) the source IP address is unworkable, it would make any kind of security on the internet illegal." Overseas restrictions on VPNs However, some other users pointed out that other countries have already placed bans and restriction on using VPNs at home. For example, citizens in China are only allowed to use certain VPNs that have been approved by the government. Meanwhile, the United Arab Emirates also has strict laws against using VPNs to access restricted content. Certain forms of restricted content can include calling services like WhatsApp. Similarly, user theantnest claimed: "As somebody who lived and worked in Dubai for a number of years, I can tell you that banning VPNs is totally possible. In the UAE every VPN website is blocked, it just won't load. And then they use deep packet inspection to detect VPN use and then throttle the traffic. "This even works on private VPNs like shoving a raspberry Pi running OpenVPN onto the network at your grandmothers house. The one caveat is that the UAE only has 2 ISPs that are both government owned. For it to work in the UK they would need to legislate that all ISPs must block VPN traffic by law." Does the government plan on banning VPNs? While concerns are being raised over a potential ban on VPNs, there is currently no indication from the government or other official bodies of this being put in place. In fact, the Science Secretary Peter Kyle told Sky News last month that he acknowledged VPN use was on the rise but stressed "the vast majority of adults" in the UK were following the rules. At the time, he said no plans were in place to ban VPNs, but added that he was looking "very closely" at how they are being used. He noted that "very few children" were actively looking for harmful content online and that the issue surrounding the law was that "harmful content comes and finds them". Melanie Dawes, the head of Ofcom, told MPs in May that people would use VPNs to get around the restrictions. 'A very concerted 17-year-old who really wants to use a VPN to access a site they shouldn't may well be able to,' she said. 'Individual users can use VPNs. Nothing in the Act blocks it. Furthermore, a spokesperson for the Age Verification Providers Association said that good quality VPNs provide a more secure way to connect to the internet. They added that AVPF does not support a ban on VPNs. Article continues below On its own website AVPF highlighted that digital services that want to remain compliant with the rules could detect VPN use, asses risk through behavioural cues, and flag users the option to verify their age or prove their location. A Government spokesperson said: "The Online Safety Act places no curbs whatsoever on what adults can say, see or access on the internet, unless it is something that would already be illegal, offline. "However, we make no apology for holding platforms to account, to ensure they take steps to prevent children from bypassing safety protections. This includes not encouraging content that promotes VPNs or other workarounds, when they are aimed specifically aimed at young users. More broadly, there are a range of legitimate reasons why users might use VPNs which do not cut across children's safety online."
Telegraph
27 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Scotland's fiscal calamity is a harbinger for all of Britain
It should be noted that this particular tax break was much cited by Labour when defending its decision last autumn to make farms subject to inheritance tax. What are they complaining about, some ministers said, when farms can still be handed down from father to son tax-free via the seven-year rule? Now, even this concession seems to be in the Chancellor's crosshairs. Wealth and aspiration are under attack across the UK as a whole, not just in Scotland. But it's even worse north of the border, where higher-rate taxpayers pay significantly more than their English counterparts on a greater proportion of their income. The quid pro quo for a more highly taxed economy is meant to be better public services, but you'd be hard-pressed to argue this is the case in Scotland. Total public spending last year at 52pc of GDP is at Scandinavian levels, but without Nordic-style welfare and services. NHS waiting lists are longer than much of the rest of the UK, social services are a disgrace, life expectancy is lower and even educational standards – once the highest in the UK – have slipped badly under Scotland's high spending regime. State education in Edinburgh is so poor that one in four families makes the financial sacrifices needed to send their children to privately funded independent schools, far higher than the UK average. Now they face the additional cost of VAT on school fees, though that one is down to Westminster, not Holyrood. And to be fair, also down to Westminster is the completely insane decision to essentially close down the North Sea oil and gas sector in pursuit of the net-zero pipe-dream. It might have been SNP policy too, but for an opportunistic change in stance just ahead of the general election aimed at saving seats in Aberdeen and beyond. The Scottish Government's current position is now a more nuanced one in which new licences for development would be assessed on a case-by-case basis, rather than the current outright ban imposed by Westminster. It's one of the few things that Holyrood seems to have done right, even if, with the overarching decision made down south, it makes no difference to the outcome. In any case, the ban steepens Scotland's fiscal challenge. Offshore oil and gas provide some of Scotland's highest-paying jobs; Ed Miliband's assault on the sector threatens lasting damage to income tax receipts, with the growth in renewables unlikely to provide a complete substitute. The smart thing to have done in maximising jobs and revenues would be to allow the two industries to run side by side, but when did either Westminster or Holyrood last practice common-sense politics? As it is, Scotland is in the same rut of rising taxation, excessive spending and declining public services as the rest of the UK, but magnified several times over. The SNP offers no answers on how it would correct the shortfall in the public finances should it ever succeed in freeing Scotland from the English teet. You might imagine that the cause of Scottish independence would have been finished for a generation or more by the SNP's inept record in government, topped off as it was by the tragicomedy of Humza Yousaf's short-lived reign as first minister. But then along came Reform UK, which threatens to split the unionist vote and thereby gives the SNP another leg up in next year's Holyrood elections.
