Mr Brightside: A Reality Check

 
 

“Back to life, back to the present time 

Back from a fantasy, yes” 

 

In the short period of time that Starmer has been PM it has become clear how he intends to govern

 
His refusal to scrap George Osborne’s two-child benefit limit imposes poverty on 250,000 children, and drives a further 850,000 into hardship and squalor.  

Readers might remember that last month, in one of his first acts as PM, Starmer suspended the whip from seven MPs who voted for an amendment to the king’s speech backing its abolition. 

However, figures, supplied by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), show that the impact of scrapping the two-child limit would be dented unless the benefit cap – introduced by the coalition government in 2013 to limit the amount a household can receive – is also reformed. 

As of April 2024, 27,000 households claiming universal credit were hit by both the two-child limit and the benefit cap, including 100,000 children. 

The benefit cap places an upper limit on the total benefits that working-age households can receive. The amount varies by location and household but particularly hits those living in areas with high rents. 

Alison Garnham, chief executive of Child Poverty Action Group, said: “The two-child limit and benefit cap are hugely harmful for children because they break the link between a family’s assessed need and their entitlement to support. Both policies force families to live on less than they need. Both are driving up child poverty. In keeping with the government’s pledge to tackle child poverty, they must be scrapped in the upcoming budget.” 
 

‘The two-child limit and benefit cap are hugely harmful for children because they break the link between a family’s assessed need and their entitlement to support’

 
The DWP figures show that households affected by both the two-child limit and the benefit cap lose £273 a month on average due to the benefit cap – equivalent to about £3,276 a year. There are 4,120 households that lose out on more than £500 a month – £6,000 a year. 

The decision to restrict winter fuel payments in England and Wales, will withdraw support from 800,000 impoverished older people who are eligible for pension credit but don’t receive it (due to means testing),  as well as another 1m pensioners just above the breadline. 

Let’s be clear these were choices that Labour made, there were other options.  

Perhaps to soften these choices there has been murmurs, but nothing more, of meaningful taxes on the mega-rich to raise revenue. The richest 350 British households have a combined wealth of £795bn: bigger than Poland’s annual economy.  

Labour gleefully made much of scrapping the Tories’ VIP helicopter contract, which, they said represented a past government that was “totally out of touch with the problems facing the rest of the country”.  

But, people in glass houses……….. Analysis by openDemocracy shows that Starmer received £76,000 worth of freebies in the last parliament. These ranged from hotel stays to more than 20 football tickets, to VIP tickets courtesy of the Premier League to see Taylor Swift, worth £4,000, during the general election campaign. Oh, and then there is Labour lord and businessperson Waheed Alli, who supplied him “work clothing” worth £16,200, and “multiple pairs of glasses” worth £2,485.  
 

‘Starmer is the most unpopular leader of the opposition to be elected PM since party leader ratings began in 1977’

 
These cost of these choices is becoming apparent;  Starmer is the most unpopular leader of the opposition to be elected PM since party leader ratings began in 1977. One poll shows him on minus 16, down 27 points from where it was last month. 

And, this must be just be the start, the increases in energy bills will hit home when winter bites, and projected cuts hammer already ravaged government departments. 

In a recent speech he told us; “the big asks … short-term pain for long-term good”. This is straight out of the Cameron / Osborne 2010 playbook.  

It is becoming increasingly clear that this is change in name only, there is a clear lack of vision for how to deal with a crisis-ridden nation. At the same time he seems to be enjoying the perks of the job to the full, and leaving others to suffer.  

The last parliament can be summed up thus: it was the worst on record for living standards, caused by rocketing fuel bills, and soaring food price. Second, with hospitals and schools at breaking point, the tax burden hit a 70-year high. We were all paying more for less. 

Starmer’s plans, as I have written before, were driven by the wrong motive; the fear of losing. To achieve this he planned to disarm critics lining up to condemn a forthcoming “debt bombshell”, and has osmosed into Sunak, committing to plans that imply spending cuts of C.£20bn every year, in addition to chancellor Reeves already announced £22bn of savings. 

He can’t even complain of being blindsided by Ofgems announcement that gas and electricity prices will go up by 10% from the start of October, as the government is told ahead of any announcement. As Katie Schmuecker of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation says, for lower income households, this is “an unrelenting cost of living crisis”. 
 

‘the increases in energy bills will hit home when winter bites, and projected cuts hammer already ravaged government departments’

 
As we learned previously, higher energy prices have far-flung effects,  impacting nearly everything else, from grocery bills to school budgets. The big difference is that today, there is far less state support. instead of the Tory cost of living payments to people on benefits, worth £900 a year, there is a much-reduced winter fuel allowance for pensioners. 

Many have already endured years of supposedly short-term pain. Over 4m low-income households are already in arrears on at least one bill or debt, while the number of poor households going without food, heating or toiletries hasn’t dipped below 7m in 2-years. 

Starmer, like many of his contemporaries, is good at telling us the “what” but never “how”. His pledge to achieve “the highest sustained growth” of all the G7 richest countries is great, wonderful. But, how?  

I fear, that Starmer’s fear of defeat which led to such timid policies which, whilst they helped him achieve power will limit his ability to do much with that power. 

And, what of the opposition? 
 

‘for lower income households, this is “an unrelenting cost of living crisis”’

 
Clearly, it is all about the leadership campaign, which, to date, has been quiet as candidates tour the country doing private hustings events with members and talking to local associations. 

Some appear confused as to their stance, E.G., Tom Tugendhat, a centrist, bizarrely decided to talk about reforming the European convention on human rights or even leaving it if necessary. This served to alienate some of supporters, and also meant that the ECHR became more of a topic in the contest, which doesn’t help him. 

Then there is the fascination on whether they would give a cabinet job to Boris Johnson should he be re-elected to parliament. Robert Jenrick said he would be “delighted” to offer a hypothetical job to a currently highly hypothetical MP. Stride tried to avoid the question entirely, or explaining why he couldn’t just say “yes” or “no”. He clearly means no, but is to frightened of alienating a section of the party.  

The fond memories of Johnson and how unfairly he was dispensed with hark back to those who thought the same when Thatcher fell on her sword back in 1990. Both divided opinion, and only adds to the feeling that this is two-parties in one 

One point that could really energise the contest is the ham-fisted efforts of the new government, which is already casting doubt on whether it is a two-term administration. This would imply that the person who becomes Tory leader actually matters, rather than electing the leader before the important leader.  

If Tory MPs start to think that this could be a one-term Labour government, then the stakes will suddenly get much higher. 
 

‘One point that could really energise the contest is the ham-fisted efforts of the new government’

 
Those with the power to decide the next Tory leader could do worse that heed to the words of Andy Street, the former Conservative mayor of the West Midlands. 

Street said of the party; “The situation we are in is very, very serious. We lost our reputation for competence and integrity.”  

He describes himself as an “optimist” and, as a result, likes to think that if the Con­servatives choose a sensible “middle ground” leader to replace Rishi Sunak they could even put up a fight at the next general election, just as Labour did after the 2019 election disaster. 
 

“The situation we are in is very, very serious. We lost our reputation for competence and integrity.”  

 
He, however fears that the party may do the very opposite.  

His concern is that too many in his party believe it should react to defeat by moving rightwards to neutralise the threat of Nigel Farage and Reform UK. “A lot of people say we need to take their [Reform’s] ground, their clothes. But it seems to me that we lost for much, much deeper reasons than that – ultimately because of a failure to deliver, a failure to govern effectively. There was a sense that voters were utterly disillusioned. So they looked for whichever route they could to punish the Conservative government. 

“The lesson of Conservative history is that you win from the centre ground. Look back to Chamberlain, Baldwin, Macmillan, even Thatcher in 1979 – she did not become a radical until later on – and of course with Cameron, all the big Conservative wins were from the centre ground. And you see it with the Labour party as well – you see it with Wilson, you see it of course with Blair, and the most obvious story is Starmer winning that middle ground back. 

“Yes, we haemorrhaged huge numbers of votes to Reform, but if you look at it we lost far more to the Lib Dems and Labour, and so if we become obsessed with Reform you put yourself in a position where you are fighting for 15% [of votes] on the far right, where actually the middle ground is opened up. 

Just like in business: if you get obsessed with one competitor you will lose a lot of the rest of the market.” 
 

“A generation of children is growing up hungry and cold, with their parents forced into unthinkable decisions about whether to heat their homes, or put food on the table or warm clothes on their children’s backs. This is a disgrace in a country as wealthy as the UK”

 
Asked which of the Tory leadership candidates he prefers, he says it is far too early to say. This week the party’s MPs will vote to cut the six candidates down to four. “What I really want to see is that their personal values are in tune with the British public’s, and that is where this question of moderation, integrity, compassion, service are important.” And what if the party does choose a right-winger? Could it be out of office for the long term, for as long as 20 years? “Correct – that is why this is so important”. 

I would suggest that, should the Tories select a right-wing leader the main beneficiary will be Farage / Reform. Why vote for the ersatz version when you can have the real things. 

As we saw in Germany this weekend, their electorate are of a similar mind, with the AfD coming first in Thuringia state with nearly 33% of the vote and a close second in Saxony with almost 31%.  

The AfD chapters in Saxony and Thuringia have been designated as “right-wing extremist” by the security authorities. The result in Thuringia marked the first time since the Nazi period that a far-right party has claimed the top spot in a state election, raising questions about how long the democratic parties can keep it out of power by refusing any cooperation. 

This is why Starmer’s seeming ignorance about inequality mystifies me. If he dealt with that, even just closed the gap, so much could change. The last word goes to Peter Matejic, chief analyst, at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation:  

“A generation of children is growing up hungry and cold, with their parents forced into unthinkable decisions about whether to heat their homes, or put food on the table or warm clothes on their children’s backs. This is a disgrace in a country as wealthy as the UK”. 
 

“I’ll be the wind, the rain and the sunset 

The light on your door to show that you’re home”