
Starmer has brought Labour to the brink of extinction. This makes him even more dangerous
Brace, dear readers, brace, for everything will get worse before it gets better. Sir Keir Starmer's premiership is holed below the waterline, his party on the verge of disintegration.
Starmer has lost control of immigration and of the public finances. Nobody knows what he stands for. It is a question of when, not if, he is forced to fire Rachel Reeves. It is unclear whether he will lead Labour into the next election, or even whether it will remain the dominant party of the Left.
Bring it on, I hear you say. But a desperate Starmer will be far worse than the incompetent, complacent version we have been subjected to so far. He no longer has anything to lose. He will target Middle England with wanton abandon, embracing Corbyn-lite policies to shore up his far-Left flank.
Every stupid idea in the collectivist arsenal – wealth taxes, the revaluation of council tax bands to hammer expensive homes, a cap on pension pots, the removal of pension tax relief, a war on Isas, steeper inheritance tax – is bound to make a comeback to fill his self-inflicted fiscal black hole.
The 'rich' will be asked to pay more for water and broadband via 'social tariffs'. Ed Miliband will be emboldened in his rush to net zero, minus the occasional tactical delay. There will be no end to the woke madness, rampant crime and unjust legal decisions.
As ludicrous as this might sound to outsiders aghast at Starmer's proto-socialism and disgusted by the human rights lawfare pushed by Lord Hermer, his attorney general, many Labour MPs and intellectuals actually believe that Starmer's error was to tack too far to the Right.
They believe he cares too much about a Red Wall that is already lost. Those in urban seats hated his warning that migration was turning Britain into 'an island of strangers' (the Red Wallers disagreed). Most saw Reeves's attempts at trimming a few benefits to placate the bond markets as this Government's foundational error (the Red Wall MPs agree). Others believe he is being too cautious when undoing Brexit. Many MPs want Britain immediately to recognise an independent Palestine – even though no such body would truly accept Israel's right to exist – a grotesque gesture that would confirm once again that pogroms and terrorism works.
The Prime Ministers' critics blame Morgan McSweeney, No 10 chief of staff, for the Government's supposedly centrist approach, and are convinced that Starmer listens too much to Tony Blair and his allies (such as Liz Lloyd, director of policy, delivery and innovation at No 10). There is talk that 15 Labour MPs may defect to the Greens if they choose as their new leader Zack Polanski, who wants to turn the party into a Left-wing populist alternative to Reform. It is hard to oust a Labour leader, but Starmer's position is weakening.
Labour's problem is the mirror image of the Tories'. Britain is undergoing a brutal realignment. Both parties were coalitions; the Tories had no rival to their Right and Labour none to their Left. Policies were designed to appeal to centrist 'median voters' and a few thousand swing electors in a few seats. Everything has changed, for three reasons.
First, the Blair-Brown-Osborne-Starmer managerialist orthodoxy has failed. The economy is toast, the public sector is kaput, social breakdown is rife and the ultra-high immigration model has gone badly wrong. The electorate craves new ideas.
Second, voters have become radicalised by culture wars. Previously uncontroversial views – on biological sex, on free speech – are now key markers of identity. Education has become more important than class, income or wealth when it comes to political affiliation, and, tragically, sectarian voting is back, fuelled by demographic change.
Third, the political marketplace is working: the public want more choice, and they are getting it. Nigel Farage's Reform is leading the polls, while on the far-Left the Greens and 'pro-Gaza' Independents are surging (with the latter's appeal probably underestimated by researchers).
Many no longer detect any difference between Labour and Tories, and no longer care which of the old duopoly is in power. On the Left, voting is becoming performative, an expression of identity and values, not a means to seize power; tactical voting is waning, and fragmentation rising.
The Labour coalition is gone, never to return. Its Right flank has fled to Reform. Some social democrats are opting for the Lib Dems, a party that could yet overtake Labour in parliament.
For Starmer, the only hope is to tack Left, appealing to Greens and Corbynites, to bash Israel and U-turn on cuts, but it won't work: this electorate has become so extreme that even a speech praising Marx and Engels would flop. Recognising Palestine wouldn't be sufficient; they would demand Russia-style sanctions. Higher benefits would be ridiculed as Austerity 2.0.
There are some around Starmer who believe he can muddle through, but they are deluded. Yes, the French are saying they will help with small boats (good luck with that), two polls suggest a smaller Reform lead, and £15 billion will be spent on buses in the North. So what? The big picture is apocalyptic.
Reeves will increase taxes at the Budget to fund her U-turns on winter fuel, the two-child benefits cap and personal independence payments, as well as public sector pay rises.
She will then need to rise taxes again and again over the next few years to put defence on course for 3.5 per cent of GDP, plus another 1.5 per cent on related spending – even before any further increases in spending on the welfare state in a doomed attempt to buy back votes. This could trigger a full-on fiscal crisis: the tax take is already maxed out and will surely fail to keep up with spending.
Labour is polling at 22 per cent, down 11.7 points on a pathetically poor election victory. Gordon Brown, Ed Miliband, Jeremy Corbyn, Neil Kinnock and Michael Foot performed better than Starmer's current ratings. We need to go back to 1918, when Labour, still a fringe group, collected 20.8pc under William Adamson, for the party to be scoring so poorly. This is where Labour is heading, or worse.
Starmer could be its final PM, the closing chapter in a 100- year story. Let's hope he doesn't entirely ruin Britain on his way out.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Reuters
36 minutes ago
- Reuters
Shaken by crises, Switzerland fetters UBS's global dream
BERN, June 6 (Reuters) - Switzerland announced reforms on Friday to make its biggest bank UBS (UBSG.S), opens new tab safer and avoid another crisis, hampering the global ambitions of a lender whose financial weight eclipses the country's economy. UBS emerged as Switzerland's sole global bank more than two years ago after the government hastily arranged its rescue of scandal-hit Credit Suisse to prevent a disorderly collapse. The demise of Credit Suisse, one of the world's biggest banks, rattled global markets and blindsided officials and regulators, whose struggle to steer the lender as it lurched from one scandal to the next underscored their weakness. On Friday, speaking from the same podium where she had announced the Credit Suisse rescue in 2023 as finance minister, Switzerland's president Karin Keller-Sutter delivered a firm message. The country would not be wrongfooted again. "I don't believe that the competitiveness will be impaired, but it is true that growth abroad will become more expensive," Keller-Sutter said of UBS. "We've had two crises. 2008 and 2023," she said. "If you see something that is broken, you have to fix it." During the global financial crisis of 2008, UBS was hit by a losses in subprime debt, as a disastrous expansion into riskier investment banking forced it to write down tens of billions of dollars and ultimately turn to the state for help. Memories of that crisis also linger, reinforcing the government's resolve after the collapse of Credit Suisse. For UBS, which has a financial balance sheet of around $1.7 trillion, far bigger than the Swiss economy, the implications of the reforms proposed on Friday are clear. Switzerland no longer wants to back its international growth. "Bottom line: who is carrying the risk for growth abroad?" said Keller-Sutter. "The bank, its owners or the state?" The rules the government proposed demand that UBS in Switzerland holds more capital to cover risks in its foreign operations. That move, one of the most important steps taken by the Swiss in a series of otherwise piecemeal measures, will make UBS's businesses abroad more expensive to run for one of the globe's largest banks for millionaires and billionaires. Following publication of the reform plans, UBS Chairman Colm Kelleher and CEO Sergio Ermotti said in an internal memo that if fully implemented, they would undermine the bank's "global competitive footprint" and hurt the Swiss economy. The reform would require UBS to hold as much as $26 billion in extra capital. Some believe the demands may alter the bank's course. "It could be that UBS has to change its strategy of growth in the United States and Asia," said Andreas Venditti, an analyst at Vontobel. "It's not just growing. It makes the existing business more expensive. It is an incentive to get smaller and this will most likely happen." Credit Suisse's demise exploded the myth of invincibility of one of the wealthiest countries in the world, home to a global reserve currency, and proved as unworkable a central reform of the financial crisis to prevent state bailouts. For many in Switzerland, the government's reforms are long overdue. "The bank is bigger than the entire Swiss economy. It makes sense that it should not grow even bigger," said Andreas Missbach of Alliance Sud, a group that campaigns for transparency. "It is good that the government did not give in to lobbying by UBS. The question is whether it is enough. We have a banking crisis roughly every 12 years. So I'm not really put at ease." UBS CEO Ermotti had lobbied against the reforms, arguing that a heavy capital burden would put the bank on the back foot with rivals. The world's second-largest wealth manager after Morgan Stanley is dwarfed by its U.S. peer. Morgan Stanley shares value the firm at twice its book value, compared with UBS's 20% premium to book. On Friday, the bank reiterated this message, saying that it strongly disagreed with the "extreme" increase in capital. But others are sceptical that the government has done enough. Hans Gersbach, a professor at ETH Zurich, said there was still no proper plan to cope should UBS run into trouble. "The credibility of the too big to fail regime remains in question."


The Independent
38 minutes ago
- The Independent
Reform UK councils in ‘shambles' as newly elected councillors fail to show up
Reform UK gained control of nine councils and minority control in three more in May's local elections, but opposition councillors claim the party's organisation and productivity have been a "shambles" since. Across the 12 Reform -controlled councils, 33 meetings have been cancelled or postponed in the first nine weeks since the election, and at least 21 Reform councillors have missed their first meetings. In Kent, nine out of 22 scheduled meetings have been cancelled since the election, including legally required meetings like the governance and audit committee. An opposition councillor in Kent, Rich Lehmann, said the cancellations were "shocking" and questioned Reform 's ability to lead the council, while Sam Smith, leader of the Conservatives in Nottinghamshire, called the start "shambolic." Reform UK councillors have reportedly cancelled meetings to reschedule them when more prepared, while Nottinghamshire Council's new Reform leader Mick Barton dismissed the criticisms as "political rhetoric from the opposition."


Sky News
39 minutes ago
- Sky News
Three alleged Iranian spies appear at Old Bailey
Three Iranian nationals charged with spying offences have appeared in court. Mostafa Sepahvand, 39, Farhad Javadi Manesh, 44, and Shapoor Qalehali Khani Noori, 55, appeared at the Old Bailey on Friday, charged with offences under the National Security Act. They are alleged to have targeted journalists working for Iran International, an independent media organisation based in London. They are all charged with engaging in conduct likely to assist the Iranian foreign intelligence service between 14 August 2024 and 16 February 2025. They arrived in the UK between 2016 and 2022 by irregular means, including by small boats and a lorry, and appeared in court via video link. They spoke through a Farsi translator to confirm their identities. Sepahvand, of St John's Wood, is also charged with engaging in surveillance, reconnaissance and open-source research, with the intention of committing serious violence against a person in the UK. Manesh, of Brent, and Noori, of Ealing, are additionally charged with surveillance and reconnaissance, with the intention that serious violence would be committed by others against a person in the UK. The plea hearing for the three men will take place on 26 September, and a provisional trial date has been set for 5 October 2026, according to Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb. The UK government summoned Iran's ambassador after the men were arrested on 3 May, saying Iran "must be held accountable for its actions". The men were arrested on the same day as five other Iranian nationals, who were taken into custody as part of an entirely separate investigation. Four of those men remain in custody and were arrested on suspicion of preparing a terrorist act. A fifth, a 24-year-old man in the Manchester area, was released on bail. Last October, MI5 director general Ken McCallum said the UK intelligence agency had responded to 20 "potentially lethal" Iran-backed plots since 2022, warning of the risk of an "increase or broadening of Iranian state aggression in the UK".