I mean, I get it. You don't want to talk about Brexit (other than a passing mention) because it seems so cliched. But ignoring it is ignoring the other huge lever that is in the government's armoury and every delay in returning in some way to the single market is a day of wasted opportunity and fiscal revenue which can be delivered without pain, except that measured by Torygraph and HateMail headlines.
Tax rises avoided or at least mitigated by this would make the decision welcomed by all but the most die-hard Brexit nut-jobs and lead to an immediate boost in the pound and likely lower borrowing costs.
I agree on Brexit. Former Leave cheerleaders keeping their heads down now after all their promises came to nothing. 60% + voters say it was a mistake. Labour need to throw the kitchen sink at avoiding the threat of Farage and his appeal to "low information voters".
Thing is, we don’t get to waltz back in. Joining the single market requires the agreement of the EU and EEA nations outside of the EU. We stand on the brink of a potential Reform government that might undo all the hard work if we were to join. And even SM wouldn’t bring us frictionless trade because there would be no customs union within it. (All that before we even think about the shitshow that would ensue if Labour were to cave on freedom of movement.)
Instinctively and personally, I would of course leap at rejoining the single market tomorrow. Right now. But there is no obvious space where this can happen. And even the polling doesn’t help – there’s nothing where Labour could point to it and say “this is what the people want”. Of course, Labour doesn’t help itself by downplaying the significance of the single market and in constantly saying we will never rejoin. There is a place where we can perhaps be specific: encouraging Labour to just drop that language and to keep playing up the benefits of more closely aligning and working with out biggest trading partner, and the improvements typical people will see as that happens.
I think Schengen is perhaps the easier battle, even if people will brand it as having lost control of our borders. That said, the recent deal reducing border frictions at airports might make this less necessary in people’s minds. Hard to say.
For me, the pound feels like a much bigger problem. I’ve seen quite a few ostensibly pro-EU people say “but not if we lose the £”, and there have been polls where stay out overtakes (re)join when there is a Euro commitment. Which is why I and many others have long said that until the UK makes peace with being a normal EU country, it’s not ready to join. (Personally, I couldn’t give two hoots about the currency I use, but I know I’m in a minority in the UK there.)
Of course, none of this is in our gift, and it’s quite possible (if unlikely) the EU may even want to keep the UK economy at arm’s length, rather than getting us on the Euro train. Perhaps there might (again, unlikely) be a calculation that giving the UK a single big ‘win’ would be the bump needed to make everyone relatively happy. Given that the EU won’t force the Euro on a member, it’s possible this could be fudged and leave us in a kind of limbo like Sweden (vs the full-fat opt-out we had, of the likes Denmark alone still enjoys).
That all said, I’m not sure it would be wise to set things up for the UK to expect preferential treatment again. If we cannot abide by the rules, maybe we always stay on the periphery, being permanently poorer and less influential as a consequence.
McSweeney is like one those Championship managers who are great at getting teams promoted, but are completely ill suited to the Premier League. (I know Ian loves a football simile)
I totally agree that we should distinguish between what this government does well and what it makes a pig’s ear of.
I understand why certain policies were implemented, but knowing that they would be unpopular meant messaging was critical and they screwed that.
When proscribing Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation and denouncing what that bloke on stage said, they indicated that they believe that being pro-Palestine and against Zionist genocide is equivalent to antisemitism. It is not clear if that’s what they believe or it’s another example of poor messaging.
Paras 23-4 of the 2016 all-party Parliamentary Home Affairs Committee report on Antisemitism.
"23. It is clear that where criticism of the Israeli Government is concerned, context is vital. Israel is an ally of the UK Government and is generally regarded as a liberal democracy, in which the actions of the Government are openly debated and critiqued by its citizens. Campaigners for Palestinian rights have informed us that they would expect similar standards of conduct from the Israeli Government as they would demand from the UK Government. It is important that non-Israelis with knowledge and understanding of the region should not be excluded from criticising the Israeli Government, in common with the many citizens of Israel who are amongst its strongest critics, including human rights organisations in that country.
24. We broadly accept the IHRA definition, but propose two additional clarifications to ensure that freedom of speech is maintained in the context of discourse about Israel and Palestine, without allowing antisemitism to permeate any debate. The definition should include the following statements:
• It is not antisemitic to criticise the Government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.
• It is not antisemitic to hold the Israeli Government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli Government’s policies or actions, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent."
And... It's not antisemitic to stand against the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent women and children, and the levelling of an entire country. It's called being a caring, empathetic, civilised human being.
And... the media need to stop calling it a war. That's the same as putting a blind man with no limbs in a boxing ring with Mike Tyson, and calling it a boxing match. Of course, Starmer would still say: "Mike Tyson has a right to defend himself". Labour have had several miserable failings in their first year. But standing on the sidelines, and not once speaking out against the genocide in Gaza, is shameful.
Sorry, but Labours landslide win wasn't down to a genius campaign. It was down to what most of us see as blindingly obvious.
First off, their campaign strategy:
1. Promise not to raise taxes. Even if it's a lie, just do it!
2. Rid the party of loonies. Well, at the very least, the ones that are out-in-the-open loony.
3. Give the impression of being a serious, responsible option. Not difficult after Johnson, May, Truss and Sunak.
Secondly, things they had absolutely no control over:
1. The Tories DID lose the election. The country had had enough of them for sure. But they were shooting themselves in the foot - from every angle - at every opportunity. Including calling the General Election at a time when there numbers were in the shitter.
2. Reform and the Lib Dems took votes from the Tories. In our first past the post system, that has huge consequences.
So I'm in the "they were going to win it anyway" camp. And McSweeney? Did he make any difference? I can't see how anyone could possible know.
So they won. That was the easy part. Governing is a whole lot harder. And I'm going to resort to your pie analogy. It's not just that the pie isn't growing. It's that the top 1% have been increasing their share for several decades. If Labour truly want to live up to what they once stood for: helping those that need it most, they will need to address the ever increasing inequality in society. That means, taxing the rich. And it definitely does not mean punishing the elderly and the disabled.
And whilst we're on pies. To increase the size of a pie, you need more ingredients. The fundamental "ingredient" needed to grow the economy, is energy. And guess what? We don't have an infinite supply of fossil fuels. If we don't get off them soon, we're fucked.
I doubt if McSweeney's culling of leftist MPs made any significant impact on the election results. Voters mostly vote on party lines and only if the candidate is outstanding or notorious in some respect are they a factor. But he will have done a Boris, and left the party intellectually weaker.
The point of a wealth tax is not so much increasing the tax take, as reducing the warping of politics that excessive wealth seems inevitably to indulge in. That would have been the aim of the abandoned legislation to control large donations, that was scuppered by Starmer's benefactor. It would also be a benefit of rejoining the EU, as it seems that Brexit was funded by rich people who wanted to avoid the taxation link-up that the EU was about to implement.
Glad you made the speech free too. Although this underlines the irony of the paywall; it stops those who need the reach from attaining it, and is irrelevant to those who don't.
Yep - would have been very easy to just say: "This was a hugely irresponsible piece of electioneering - the fact the Tories lost so badly shows that people were not clamouring for these tax cuts. Our public services desperately need this money, so we're going to reverse them". No one would care by this point and Reeves would have significantly more room for manoeuvre
Not too much to disagree with but some things left unsaid or understated. Starmer needs a minder to compensate for his lack of tangible emotional intelligence. It’s not good enough to say no one spotted the landmine in ‘island of strangers’ they should have and someone should have seen the need to hand hold Starmer transitioning from being a leading world statesman to making a high stakes domestic speech just after getting off a long flight and being distracted by attacks on his personal properties and car. There doesn’t seem to be anyone paying attention to the times when he needs to row back quickly on a misstep like the comment that Israel is within its rights to withhold water and power from civilians or the abrupt rudeness to a hapless MP asking him a question he didn’t like.
Fixing the economy, growth, is clearly the priority so why has Starmer tied everyone’s hands behind their back with his stubborn insistence that rejoining the customs union, taking steps towards reentering the EU won’t happen in his lifetime? His hostility towards free movement, even for young people sends the wrong signal, just as bashing disabled people whilst falling over backwards to avoid upsetting the wealthy does.
There is a perception created that Starmer and his government is enthusiastically attentive to lobbying by powerful and influential voices like the government of Israel, water and energy bosses, wealthy asset hoarders and the like but is determined to ignore any protest or complaint from the have nots. We need wealth redistribution so poorer people feel better off, listened to and cared about. We need to lift children out of poverty and pay attention to the rule of international law being applied to our allies as well as our enemies if people are going to feel better about themselves and the moral character of their country. This is the missing story the government isn’t telling, a road map to the feel good factor that will get Labour reelected. A feel good factor that will deny Farage the ground to sow his toxic seeds of discontent.
Brilliant piece of writing on the current Labour trough. As a former exile currently visiting from Oz I can’t help feeling the UK is fucked and a land of ever widening haves and have nots. I don’t know how ordinary folks cope honestly. You can see the underinvestment everywhere and the lack of decent infrastructure. If I see another Range Rover belting along on a narrow country road trying to play a game of chicken I will surely have a “mad max “ moment. I read patients in NHS hospitals for example are offered personal TV but they have to pay £10 a day. I am visiting a relative who was fucked over by a negligent health care system that left her paralysed and in aged care for which she pays a small fortune. I suppose she is lucky she can afford it some will say but that is bollocks. How fucked is that? I don’t understand how the labour leadership with all the smarts on tap failed to learn the lessons of how the Tories and the press will do you over if you give them have a chance. A lack of prep surely and false confidence from an overwhelming victory. Who bloody knows? One sincerely hopes they stop digging and start climbing out of the self made hole.
“People often comment on how low Labour's popular vote was - at just 33.7%. It is low, but then it always is. David Cameron got 36.8% in 2015, an event which passed without anyone questioning its validity”
Great article. Sensible, calm and measured. A nice break from the outrage and drama in the news cycle. Labour are doing good things, mainly around fairness but they are also doing self harm actions. They do have 4 years to reset the narrative, I hope they do. I really do.
At the moment, this is all ominously rhyming with Joe Biden's term in office in the States. A government's job is not only to do the good things, it's to communicate to the electorate that the good things are being done.
In a perfect world, this wouldn't be the case. Good thing would be happening, then we'd all point at it and go "Oh, that's a good thing". In reality, though, we don't ever really acknowledge the good thing until either a) it benefits us, or b) we have it's importance spoon-fed to us like the drooling dullards we are.
We're unlikely to feel tangibly better by 2029. Things are just too fucked up. They're doing good things, but will the NHS be sorted? Doubt it. Will the cost of living situation be better? Maybe, but there's a lot of shitty variables like Putin, Trump and Netanyahu involved. Overall, I wouldn't bet on it.. The economy? Can't see it unless we work out something at least similar to European single market membership. Immigration sure as hell won't be sorted out because it can't defy the reality of low birth rate and poor skills provision combined with global instability and a climate emergency.
This is a two term repair job. So, Labour (whoever's in charge - I wouldn't rule out replacing Starmer if he's not up to it) have *#GOT#* to start telling a better story. Otherwise we start to plagiarise the next chapter in the Joe Biden story, and elect a populist, telling us that the solution's all as simple as othering our friends and neighbours.
It was clear during the GE campaign that Labour had finally got the memo - don't campaign in seats you stand no chance of winning. Our local candidate got pulled from our constituency, among howls of protest from the local party.
And indeed, this was one of the howls of protest after the huge win - that it was a very "thin" majority. Yep. Suck it up, buttercup.
People are complaining about the lack of a positive message, which is because they're intent on arguing against the latest pile of poop from Farage, Bad Enoch, or some opaquely-funded Tufton Street think tank.
And I just know every single media round from now until the autumn will be "will you be raising taxes?" and "how much will you be raising taxes?" and "if you're not going to raise taxes, how are you going to fund the black hole caused by your appalling messaging in advance of bringing forward legislation?"
There is surprising agreement about Labour's direction of travel, and many from the right of politics are grudgingly nodding their head at aspects of their work.
That "wealth tax" is a nice soundbite but an impossible dream can be seen from the attempts to tax wealthy landowners by closing the inheritance tax loophole which allowed Clarkson to put his millions into a farm for safety from the HMRC. Cue screams and protests and apparent suicides caused by The Family Farm Tax.
Yes, PAYE tax would raise many billions, and the tariffs were an opportunity, but of course, if the tariffs went away, there would be cries for an income tax reversal. I would rather have used the Ukraine war, and the increase in military spending. That's something which isn't going away while Trump is sitting on his golden throne. But again, a missed opportunity.
There are a lot of positives to Labour's first year. There are a few doing their best to bring them forward in the absence of almost any positive messaging from Labour spokespeople. It's about time other parties and commentators were talking about Labour's policies, instead of making accusations.
I don't believe, however, that the opportunity to raise taxes to fund increased defence spending has gone away. Russia isn't going away, and the war rages on in Eastern Europe still. Russia is running a war economy and we should be too, as we watch now North Korean troops being brought to the front lines. I believe there's a strong majority in the British public to respond robustly to Russian aggression in Europe. Raise taxes now for this, and other essentials, and make sure the public understand the reasons why. I can't see the Tories objecting to this, and if Reform did then it will be exposed for the pro-Russian party that it prefers to keep quiet about.
Increase defence spending, and boost British defence contractors at the same time. I don't believe the British public will protest, and indeed it may well even boost Labour appeal in ways not too dissimilar to what the Falklands War did for Thatcher. Not that that should be a reason to do so, but could the Tories effectively argue against a tax increase of, say one percent (how much does one need) to pay for defence, support British industry, and modernise creaking infrastructure - schools for one? I don't think so, not least as they've clearly not done anything good for any of these over the last fifteen years.
I mean, I get it. You don't want to talk about Brexit (other than a passing mention) because it seems so cliched. But ignoring it is ignoring the other huge lever that is in the government's armoury and every delay in returning in some way to the single market is a day of wasted opportunity and fiscal revenue which can be delivered without pain, except that measured by Torygraph and HateMail headlines.
Tax rises avoided or at least mitigated by this would make the decision welcomed by all but the most die-hard Brexit nut-jobs and lead to an immediate boost in the pound and likely lower borrowing costs.
I agree on Brexit. Former Leave cheerleaders keeping their heads down now after all their promises came to nothing. 60% + voters say it was a mistake. Labour need to throw the kitchen sink at avoiding the threat of Farage and his appeal to "low information voters".
Thing is, we don’t get to waltz back in. Joining the single market requires the agreement of the EU and EEA nations outside of the EU. We stand on the brink of a potential Reform government that might undo all the hard work if we were to join. And even SM wouldn’t bring us frictionless trade because there would be no customs union within it. (All that before we even think about the shitshow that would ensue if Labour were to cave on freedom of movement.)
Instinctively and personally, I would of course leap at rejoining the single market tomorrow. Right now. But there is no obvious space where this can happen. And even the polling doesn’t help – there’s nothing where Labour could point to it and say “this is what the people want”. Of course, Labour doesn’t help itself by downplaying the significance of the single market and in constantly saying we will never rejoin. There is a place where we can perhaps be specific: encouraging Labour to just drop that language and to keep playing up the benefits of more closely aligning and working with out biggest trading partner, and the improvements typical people will see as that happens.
Two hurdles, one OK; the other some form of (generational?) political suicide.
Article 49 required entry criteria
1. Join Schengen within 6 months
2. Irreversible commitment to £ -> €, immediate on passing five economic indicator criteria
I think Schengen is perhaps the easier battle, even if people will brand it as having lost control of our borders. That said, the recent deal reducing border frictions at airports might make this less necessary in people’s minds. Hard to say.
For me, the pound feels like a much bigger problem. I’ve seen quite a few ostensibly pro-EU people say “but not if we lose the £”, and there have been polls where stay out overtakes (re)join when there is a Euro commitment. Which is why I and many others have long said that until the UK makes peace with being a normal EU country, it’s not ready to join. (Personally, I couldn’t give two hoots about the currency I use, but I know I’m in a minority in the UK there.)
Of course, none of this is in our gift, and it’s quite possible (if unlikely) the EU may even want to keep the UK economy at arm’s length, rather than getting us on the Euro train. Perhaps there might (again, unlikely) be a calculation that giving the UK a single big ‘win’ would be the bump needed to make everyone relatively happy. Given that the EU won’t force the Euro on a member, it’s possible this could be fudged and leave us in a kind of limbo like Sweden (vs the full-fat opt-out we had, of the likes Denmark alone still enjoys).
That all said, I’m not sure it would be wise to set things up for the UK to expect preferential treatment again. If we cannot abide by the rules, maybe we always stay on the periphery, being permanently poorer and less influential as a consequence.
Indeed, you get my "easy" and "suicide". EU will not abide another Denmark. Commitment #2 shall apply
McSweeney is like one those Championship managers who are great at getting teams promoted, but are completely ill suited to the Premier League. (I know Ian loves a football simile)
So is Starmer…
I totally agree that we should distinguish between what this government does well and what it makes a pig’s ear of.
I understand why certain policies were implemented, but knowing that they would be unpopular meant messaging was critical and they screwed that.
When proscribing Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation and denouncing what that bloke on stage said, they indicated that they believe that being pro-Palestine and against Zionist genocide is equivalent to antisemitism. It is not clear if that’s what they believe or it’s another example of poor messaging.
Paras 23-4 of the 2016 all-party Parliamentary Home Affairs Committee report on Antisemitism.
"23. It is clear that where criticism of the Israeli Government is concerned, context is vital. Israel is an ally of the UK Government and is generally regarded as a liberal democracy, in which the actions of the Government are openly debated and critiqued by its citizens. Campaigners for Palestinian rights have informed us that they would expect similar standards of conduct from the Israeli Government as they would demand from the UK Government. It is important that non-Israelis with knowledge and understanding of the region should not be excluded from criticising the Israeli Government, in common with the many citizens of Israel who are amongst its strongest critics, including human rights organisations in that country.
24. We broadly accept the IHRA definition, but propose two additional clarifications to ensure that freedom of speech is maintained in the context of discourse about Israel and Palestine, without allowing antisemitism to permeate any debate. The definition should include the following statements:
• It is not antisemitic to criticise the Government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.
• It is not antisemitic to hold the Israeli Government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli Government’s policies or actions, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent."
And... It's not antisemitic to stand against the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent women and children, and the levelling of an entire country. It's called being a caring, empathetic, civilised human being.
And... the media need to stop calling it a war. That's the same as putting a blind man with no limbs in a boxing ring with Mike Tyson, and calling it a boxing match. Of course, Starmer would still say: "Mike Tyson has a right to defend himself". Labour have had several miserable failings in their first year. But standing on the sidelines, and not once speaking out against the genocide in Gaza, is shameful.
Spot on Ian, as per
Thank you, in the middle of all the crap, you always manage to find a laugh and some genuine hope.
Thank you for a constructive, critical, brilliant article
Sorry, but Labours landslide win wasn't down to a genius campaign. It was down to what most of us see as blindingly obvious.
First off, their campaign strategy:
1. Promise not to raise taxes. Even if it's a lie, just do it!
2. Rid the party of loonies. Well, at the very least, the ones that are out-in-the-open loony.
3. Give the impression of being a serious, responsible option. Not difficult after Johnson, May, Truss and Sunak.
Secondly, things they had absolutely no control over:
1. The Tories DID lose the election. The country had had enough of them for sure. But they were shooting themselves in the foot - from every angle - at every opportunity. Including calling the General Election at a time when there numbers were in the shitter.
2. Reform and the Lib Dems took votes from the Tories. In our first past the post system, that has huge consequences.
So I'm in the "they were going to win it anyway" camp. And McSweeney? Did he make any difference? I can't see how anyone could possible know.
So they won. That was the easy part. Governing is a whole lot harder. And I'm going to resort to your pie analogy. It's not just that the pie isn't growing. It's that the top 1% have been increasing their share for several decades. If Labour truly want to live up to what they once stood for: helping those that need it most, they will need to address the ever increasing inequality in society. That means, taxing the rich. And it definitely does not mean punishing the elderly and the disabled.
And whilst we're on pies. To increase the size of a pie, you need more ingredients. The fundamental "ingredient" needed to grow the economy, is energy. And guess what? We don't have an infinite supply of fossil fuels. If we don't get off them soon, we're fucked.
Vote Green. Save the planet. Save humanity.
I doubt if McSweeney's culling of leftist MPs made any significant impact on the election results. Voters mostly vote on party lines and only if the candidate is outstanding or notorious in some respect are they a factor. But he will have done a Boris, and left the party intellectually weaker.
The point of a wealth tax is not so much increasing the tax take, as reducing the warping of politics that excessive wealth seems inevitably to indulge in. That would have been the aim of the abandoned legislation to control large donations, that was scuppered by Starmer's benefactor. It would also be a benefit of rejoining the EU, as it seems that Brexit was funded by rich people who wanted to avoid the taxation link-up that the EU was about to implement.
Miliband is doing a good job on energy / net zero.
Truly an emotional rollercoaster!
Glad you made the speech free too. Although this underlines the irony of the paywall; it stops those who need the reach from attaining it, and is irrelevant to those who don't.
Jeremy Hunt dug two great big elephant traps with his unfunded NI cuts.
Starmer/Reeves didn't even fall into them, they chose to jump in with both feet.
Some of us were saying from before the election that they should be reversed on Day One.
Yep - would have been very easy to just say: "This was a hugely irresponsible piece of electioneering - the fact the Tories lost so badly shows that people were not clamouring for these tax cuts. Our public services desperately need this money, so we're going to reverse them". No one would care by this point and Reeves would have significantly more room for manoeuvre
Not too much to disagree with but some things left unsaid or understated. Starmer needs a minder to compensate for his lack of tangible emotional intelligence. It’s not good enough to say no one spotted the landmine in ‘island of strangers’ they should have and someone should have seen the need to hand hold Starmer transitioning from being a leading world statesman to making a high stakes domestic speech just after getting off a long flight and being distracted by attacks on his personal properties and car. There doesn’t seem to be anyone paying attention to the times when he needs to row back quickly on a misstep like the comment that Israel is within its rights to withhold water and power from civilians or the abrupt rudeness to a hapless MP asking him a question he didn’t like.
Fixing the economy, growth, is clearly the priority so why has Starmer tied everyone’s hands behind their back with his stubborn insistence that rejoining the customs union, taking steps towards reentering the EU won’t happen in his lifetime? His hostility towards free movement, even for young people sends the wrong signal, just as bashing disabled people whilst falling over backwards to avoid upsetting the wealthy does.
There is a perception created that Starmer and his government is enthusiastically attentive to lobbying by powerful and influential voices like the government of Israel, water and energy bosses, wealthy asset hoarders and the like but is determined to ignore any protest or complaint from the have nots. We need wealth redistribution so poorer people feel better off, listened to and cared about. We need to lift children out of poverty and pay attention to the rule of international law being applied to our allies as well as our enemies if people are going to feel better about themselves and the moral character of their country. This is the missing story the government isn’t telling, a road map to the feel good factor that will get Labour reelected. A feel good factor that will deny Farage the ground to sow his toxic seeds of discontent.
Brilliant piece of writing on the current Labour trough. As a former exile currently visiting from Oz I can’t help feeling the UK is fucked and a land of ever widening haves and have nots. I don’t know how ordinary folks cope honestly. You can see the underinvestment everywhere and the lack of decent infrastructure. If I see another Range Rover belting along on a narrow country road trying to play a game of chicken I will surely have a “mad max “ moment. I read patients in NHS hospitals for example are offered personal TV but they have to pay £10 a day. I am visiting a relative who was fucked over by a negligent health care system that left her paralysed and in aged care for which she pays a small fortune. I suppose she is lucky she can afford it some will say but that is bollocks. How fucked is that? I don’t understand how the labour leadership with all the smarts on tap failed to learn the lessons of how the Tories and the press will do you over if you give them have a chance. A lack of prep surely and false confidence from an overwhelming victory. Who bloody knows? One sincerely hopes they stop digging and start climbing out of the self made hole.
“People often comment on how low Labour's popular vote was - at just 33.7%. It is low, but then it always is. David Cameron got 36.8% in 2015, an event which passed without anyone questioning its validity”
I have repeatedly questioned its validity.
Great article. Sensible, calm and measured. A nice break from the outrage and drama in the news cycle. Labour are doing good things, mainly around fairness but they are also doing self harm actions. They do have 4 years to reset the narrative, I hope they do. I really do.
At the moment, this is all ominously rhyming with Joe Biden's term in office in the States. A government's job is not only to do the good things, it's to communicate to the electorate that the good things are being done.
In a perfect world, this wouldn't be the case. Good thing would be happening, then we'd all point at it and go "Oh, that's a good thing". In reality, though, we don't ever really acknowledge the good thing until either a) it benefits us, or b) we have it's importance spoon-fed to us like the drooling dullards we are.
We're unlikely to feel tangibly better by 2029. Things are just too fucked up. They're doing good things, but will the NHS be sorted? Doubt it. Will the cost of living situation be better? Maybe, but there's a lot of shitty variables like Putin, Trump and Netanyahu involved. Overall, I wouldn't bet on it.. The economy? Can't see it unless we work out something at least similar to European single market membership. Immigration sure as hell won't be sorted out because it can't defy the reality of low birth rate and poor skills provision combined with global instability and a climate emergency.
This is a two term repair job. So, Labour (whoever's in charge - I wouldn't rule out replacing Starmer if he's not up to it) have *#GOT#* to start telling a better story. Otherwise we start to plagiarise the next chapter in the Joe Biden story, and elect a populist, telling us that the solution's all as simple as othering our friends and neighbours.
It was clear during the GE campaign that Labour had finally got the memo - don't campaign in seats you stand no chance of winning. Our local candidate got pulled from our constituency, among howls of protest from the local party.
And indeed, this was one of the howls of protest after the huge win - that it was a very "thin" majority. Yep. Suck it up, buttercup.
People are complaining about the lack of a positive message, which is because they're intent on arguing against the latest pile of poop from Farage, Bad Enoch, or some opaquely-funded Tufton Street think tank.
And I just know every single media round from now until the autumn will be "will you be raising taxes?" and "how much will you be raising taxes?" and "if you're not going to raise taxes, how are you going to fund the black hole caused by your appalling messaging in advance of bringing forward legislation?"
There is surprising agreement about Labour's direction of travel, and many from the right of politics are grudgingly nodding their head at aspects of their work.
That "wealth tax" is a nice soundbite but an impossible dream can be seen from the attempts to tax wealthy landowners by closing the inheritance tax loophole which allowed Clarkson to put his millions into a farm for safety from the HMRC. Cue screams and protests and apparent suicides caused by The Family Farm Tax.
Yes, PAYE tax would raise many billions, and the tariffs were an opportunity, but of course, if the tariffs went away, there would be cries for an income tax reversal. I would rather have used the Ukraine war, and the increase in military spending. That's something which isn't going away while Trump is sitting on his golden throne. But again, a missed opportunity.
There are a lot of positives to Labour's first year. There are a few doing their best to bring them forward in the absence of almost any positive messaging from Labour spokespeople. It's about time other parties and commentators were talking about Labour's policies, instead of making accusations.
https://bsky.app/profile/viviane49.bsky.social/post/3lpt4pgwt4p2z
https://x.com/LaindonFEMINIST/status/1919656414189957516
https://x.com/sebastiansalek/status/1940014981912686787
I agree with much of what you say.
I don't believe, however, that the opportunity to raise taxes to fund increased defence spending has gone away. Russia isn't going away, and the war rages on in Eastern Europe still. Russia is running a war economy and we should be too, as we watch now North Korean troops being brought to the front lines. I believe there's a strong majority in the British public to respond robustly to Russian aggression in Europe. Raise taxes now for this, and other essentials, and make sure the public understand the reasons why. I can't see the Tories objecting to this, and if Reform did then it will be exposed for the pro-Russian party that it prefers to keep quiet about.
Increase defence spending, and boost British defence contractors at the same time. I don't believe the British public will protest, and indeed it may well even boost Labour appeal in ways not too dissimilar to what the Falklands War did for Thatcher. Not that that should be a reason to do so, but could the Tories effectively argue against a tax increase of, say one percent (how much does one need) to pay for defence, support British industry, and modernise creaking infrastructure - schools for one? I don't think so, not least as they've clearly not done anything good for any of these over the last fifteen years.