The Labour Party under Keir Starmer

[Cowley]

Now that the election is done and dusted it’s time for a dedicated thread on the government as we’ve previously had.

If anyone wants to get the ball rolling on how they feel the first few weeks have gone then feel free.

 

[Purple Train]

If anyone wants to get the ball rolling on how they feel the first few weeks have gone then feel free.

Alright. And to be honest I am quite thankful that I have nothing more to say. It's good not to have the government constantly in the headlines, and have them actually working "behind the scenes" as it were instead, though they've already had a lot to do. Solid and unspectacular - in other words, sensible politics.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Boring - exactly what is needed right now. No cult of personality etc. Just quietly doing it.

 

[brad465]

Starmer just needs to serve for 16 more days and he's served longer than Truss.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Starmer just needs to serve for 16 more days and he's served longer than Truss.

Well when you put it like that ……. crazy.

 

[GusB]

Starmer just needs to serve for 16 more days and he's served longer than Truss.

He has had to deal with a rather large crisis within a short time of him becoming prime minister. When I say crisis, I mean one that isn't completely self-inflicted. As far as the riots are concerned, I think he's doing fairly well.

 

[Strathclyder]

Boring - which is precisely what is needed right now. Just getting on with things.

 

[Falcon1200]

Not sure that means-testing pensioners' winter fuel payments could be described as boring, nor offering junior doctors a 22% pay increase - At the same time!

 

[takno]

Not sure that means-testing pensioners' winter fuel payments could be described as boring, nor offering junior doctors a 22% pay increase - At the same time!

And yet nobody is interested in them. They have (rightly) been sold as boring changes which will fundamentally help the country. They could easily have turned into battlefields, but just didn't.

Part of that reflects the size of the majority, and the lack of effective opposition, but a lot of it just comes down to Starmer and the cabinet delivering a consistent line rather than constantly fighting like a sack of cats

 

[nw1]

The overall image I'm getting right now is "competent" albeit with some severe difficulties caused by recent world events (Covid, Ukraine) and perhaps the actions of some recent Tory leaders (Truss, Johnson).

I certainly think Starmer is coming across as a strong leader regarding the riots.

I can see difficulties ahead but I hope they shield the more vulnerable in society. That, to my mind, is how Labour "ought" to be different to the Tories.

 

[Falcon1200]

And yet nobody is interested in them.

I would disagree with that; There are a fair number of pensioners whose income is just above the benefit level for whom the winter fuel payment was important; There are also pensioners entitled to benefits but who do not claim them and will therefore also miss out on the payment.

 

[nw1]

I would disagree with that; There are a fair number of pensioners whose income is just above the benefit level for whom the winter fuel payment was important; There are also pensioners entitled to benefits but who do not claim them and will therefore also miss out on the payment.

The question is though: are their needs more important than others who might benefit because other cuts will not be made as a result?

 

[takno]

I would disagree with that; There are a fair number of pensioners whose income is just above the benefit level for whom the winter fuel payment was important; There are also pensioners entitled to benefits but who do not claim them and will therefore also miss out on the payment.

There's an awful lot of much poorer people about as well. It makes more sense to focus on getting the entitled pensioners access to the full range of benefits they are entitled to, rather than slinging hundreds of pounds at a group which in many cases has significantly over median disposable income.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Well, as of today, Keir Starmer has officially been in office longer than Liz Truss and will not be the UK's shortest serving PM if he resigned today.

Labour Party membership fell to its lowest since 2015.

Membership of the main political parties continued to fall last year despite Westminster gearing up for a general election, according to newly published accounts.

Labour lost 37,000 more members during 2023, leaving its total membership at 370,450 at the end of the year.

Although it still has the most members of any UK party, the figure is significantly down from a peak of 532,046 at the end of 2019.

Party memberships fell in 2023 despite looming election - BBC News

Labour lost another 37,000 members last year, while the Lib Dems lost around 11,000.

www.bbc.co.uk

Sounds like a lot of Corbynites who joined during 2016-2019 have left the party due to its move to the political centre.

 

[Purple Train]

Sounds like a lot of Corbynites who joined during 2016-2019 have left the party due to its move to the political centre.

Not that I think that's a terrible thing - parties being full of ideological puritans gave us, for instance, Liz Truss as Prime Minister, and one of the things Tony Blair was well-regarded for (if I remember correctly) was, as I think John Smith put it, "giving the constituency back to the people he represented" by broadening the appeal of the local Labour party.

 

[brad465]

I heard somewhere that Starmer is planning to reform party leadership elections to only allow MPs to choose the next leader while Labour are in government (and in turn the next PM), presumably at the next conference. If true and implemented this will very much be learning the lessons of the multiple Tory leadership elections that saw members choose a PM.

 

[Bayum]

I would disagree with that; There are a fair number of pensioners whose income is just above the benefit level for whom the winter fuel payment was important; There are also pensioners entitled to benefits but who do not claim them and will therefore also miss out on the payment.

But that is where you encourage pensioners to apply for a benefit they are rightly entitled to.

 

[Busaholic]

Not that I think that's a terrible thing - parties being full of ideological puritans gave us, for instance, Liz Truss as Prime Minister, and one of the things Tony Blair was well-regarded for (if I remember correctly) was, as I think John Smith put it, "giving the constituency back to the people he represented" by broadening the appeal of the local Labour party.

Don't quite understand your remark about Tony Blair. John Smith was in no position to comment on his effect given it was Smith's death that brought Blair to the leadership.

Starmer has certainly proved the point that so many made before the election that the voting was going to be much more on an anti-Tory basis than a pro-Labour one. I know the inheritance he's been given is much more challenging than Blair's was, but even so his honeymoon period was very brief. I think he's made some bad calls about various things, some of which don't even save any money. Personally, I'd call Starmer as much of a puritan as Truss, about whom I'd use a much stronger term anyway.

 

[Falcon1200]

But that is where you encourage pensioners to apply for a benefit they are rightly entitled to.

And should that achieve 100% take-up, fair enough. But I am not convinced that it will, and of course those just above the benefits threshold still lose out, and, like all of us, will have higher energy bills this winter.

 

[Vinnym]

And should that achieve 100% take-up, fair enough. But I am not convinced that it will, and of course those just above the benefits threshold still lose out, and, like all of us, will have higher energy bills this winter.

If there was 100% take up it will cost more than the the savings made from ending the universal payout under WFP. However money will then be reaching those who deserve it.

 

[Bayum]

And should that achieve 100% take-up, fair enough. But I am not convinced that it will, and of course those just above the benefits threshold still lose out, and, like all of us, will have higher energy bills this winter.

But barring the winter fuel payment, not a labour-created problem. I am sure many more pensioners and families will be looking in to whether they are eligible for the relevant benefits.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Starmer= Blair

 

[Senex]

I would disagree with that; There are a fair number of pensioners whose income is just above the benefit level for whom the winter fuel payment was important; There are also pensioners entitled to benefits but who do not claim them and will therefore also miss out on the payment.

I seem to remember that back in 1997 (?) Gordon Brown introduced the Winter Fuel Allowance as a one-off payment in order to avoid raising the state pension itself. Over the quarter of a century since then it has certainly become an expected element of pensioner income and it is really interesting that one of the first changes Labour has chosen to make is what is in effect a non-Manifesto reduction of the pension — and has chosen to go for this rather than look at excess profits in the banking or fuel or water industries. And the British state pension is already amongst the poorer ones in the civilised world.

Is Labour about to head down the traditional path of handouts both for those genuinely in need and others whilst again not daring to touch the really rich (no wealth tax, no changes to inheritance tax, no massive chase-up of tax evasion, etc), and at the same time taking money off those in the middle (including the train-drivers, senior teachers, "junior" medics, police, etc) by not raising tax thresholds and other ploys — and now even resorts to attacking the pension arrangements?

At least it's no longer the Tories in power (and infinite thanks to whomsoever we believe in for that!), but is Labour really so different? Will this just continue to be the land of the ever-widening gap between the very rich and slowly worsening conditions for the middle and lower elements amongst us?

 

[AlterEgo]

Starmer= Blair

Late Blair, at that.

 

[ChrisC]

I would disagree with that; There are a fair number of pensioners whose income is just above the benefit level for whom the winter fuel payment was important; There are also pensioners entitled to benefits but who do not claim them and will therefore also miss out on the payment.

I think the main problem is that the threshold for receiving pension credit is set so low, resulting in many people who are just above that threshold really struggling financially. It will be these people who will be hit the most by the taking away of the winter fuel payment. The pension credit threshold is only £218.15 for a single person and £332.95 for a couple. With the income tax threshold frozen at £12,570 many people who won‘t now be receiving their winter fuel payment are also getting closer to the level when they will have to pay income tax. The taking away of the winter fuel payment has come as quite a hard hit for those people just above the benefit level and the fact that it’s been introduced so quickly with no warning hasn‘t helped the situation.

Last winter, I got my winter fuel payment for the first time. I‘m not a millionaire and cannot be described as one of the really wealthy pensioners. However, with my teachers pension and now state pension, although both reduced because I chose to retire early, I‘m fortunately reasonably well off and did not need the winter fuel payment. Having worked hard all of my life I’ve also managed to build up some savings which I‘m only just beginning to occasionally dip into, but retirement is what it’s for.

I think the big mistake the government has made is cutting the winter fuel payment so quickly with no warning for those who rely on it. It should have been phased in and the threshold for receiving it set at a higher level than the pension credit threshold. The really wealthy pensioners should never have received winter fuel payments, people like me who have a more than adequate income from pensions probably shouldn’t get it. However, many of those who are on lower incomes still need it.

 

[brad465]

Late Blair, at that.

Is Blair dead? That's news to me

 

[takno]

I seem to remember that back in 1997 (?) Gordon Brown introduced the Winter Fuel Allowance as a one-off payment in order to avoid raising the state pension itself. Over the quarter of a century since then it has certainly become an expected element of pensioner income and it is really interesting that one of the first changes Labour has chosen to make is what is in effect a non-Manifesto reduction of the pension — and has chosen to go for this rather than look at excess profits in the banking or fuel or water industries. And the British state pension is already amongst the poorer ones in the civilised world.

Is Labour about to head down the traditional path of handouts both for those genuinely in need and others whilst again not daring to touch the really rich (no wealth tax, no changes to inheritance tax, no massive chase-up of tax evasion, etc), and at the same time taking money off those in the middle (including the train-drivers, senior teachers, "junior" medics, police, etc) by not raising tax thresholds and other ploys — and now even resorts to attacking the pension arrangements?

At least it's no longer the Tories in power (and infinite thanks to whomsoever we believe in for that!), but is Labour really so different? Will this just continue to be the land of the ever-widening gap between the very rich and slowly worsening conditions for the middle and lower elements amongst us?

The winter fuel allowance is an odd anomaly which most richer people will never have figured into their pension calculations at all. If it was worth keeping it should have just been part of the pension, rather than a weird hypothecated additional payment.

In terms of the assorted whataboutery, the winter fuel payment is an easy change to make which will impact the finances this year. Any changes to personal tax couldn't take effect before next April at the earliest, and in all probability not fully for another year after that.

Windfall taxes on banks might theoretically be possible, although it's not particularly clear that banks have some wild pot of gold that they don't deserve. Energy companies are potentially a bit more credible, but the energy companies that have the excess revenues are largely international, and very few of them are meaningfully controlled by the UK.

The water industry is a more complex problem because in the case of Thames and probably others the money has effectively already been stolen by parent companies. If they go bankrupt it's quite likely that it would cost the government billions to get the company cleanly back into public ownership.

Sadly we're a relatively small player in a global economic system where governments struggle to assert control, and even when they do the real influence lies in Europe and the US. The UK government is less powerful than it has ever been.

 

[Busaholic]

Is Blair dead? That's news to me

If he is, his ghost will haunt us.

I seem to remember that back in 1997 (?) Gordon Brown introduced the Winter Fuel Allowance as a one-off payment in order to avoid raising the state pension itself. Over the quarter of a century since then it has certainly become an expected element of pensioner income and it is really interesting that one of the first changes Labour has chosen to make is what is in effect a non-Manifesto reduction of the pension — and has chosen to go for this rather than look at excess profits in the banking or fuel or water industries. And the British state pension is already amongst the poorer ones in the civilised world.

Is Labour about to head down the traditional path of handouts both for those genuinely in need and others whilst again not daring to touch the really rich (no wealth tax, no changes to inheritance tax, no massive chase-up of tax evasion, etc), and at the same time taking money off those in the middle (including the train-drivers, senior teachers, "junior" medics, police, etc) by not raising tax thresholds and other ploys — and now even resorts to attacking the pension arrangements?

At least it's no longer the Tories in power (and infinite thanks to whomsoever we believe in for that!), but is Labour really so different? Will this just continue to be the land of the ever-widening gap between the very rich and slowly worsening conditions for the middle and lower elements amongst us?

I think that's a very fair and measured assessment. I'd just add that, in this time of talk about 'two-tier' policing, the state pension is also a 'two-tier' affair, with older pensioners being stuck forever on a lower rate with the gap ever widening.

 

[brad465]

If he is, his ghost will haunt us.

He certainly looked haunted when he adopted that mullet hairstyle during covid:

(Image of Tony Blair sporting a mullet hairstyle)

 

[Purple Train]

Don't quite understand your remark about Tony Blair. John Smith was in no position to comment on his effect given it was Smith's death that brought Blair to the leadership.

Smith made the remark about Blair as a constituency MP.

Starmer has certainly proved the point that so many made before the election that the voting was going to be much more on an anti-Tory basis than a pro-Labour one. I know the inheritance he's been given is much more challenging than Blair's was, but even so his honeymoon period was very brief. I think he's made some bad calls about various things, some of which don't even save any money. Personally, I'd call Starmer as much of a puritan as Truss, about whom I'd use a much stronger term anyway.

He's been in office for just under two months. I think the way in which the WFP cuts were made was ill-advised, yes, but I think judging what is clearly a longer-term plan when he has only been in office for two months is unwise.

As Yes, Minister said, there is one year of getting to grips with the state of the country, the prevailing economic situation (which is always either appalling or catastrophic, and the full extent of which has been hidden from the nation and therefore the Opposition) and any impending crises that have also been kept secret. Then there are two years of serious government, and two years of swotting for an exam.

Hence, unless they've done something catastrophically awful, making such sweeping criticisms of a very new government is like calling a horse race after a furlong. At the very least, I'd wait for the Budget.