The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[DarloRich]

Blair actively blocked attempts by others to have Corbyn thrown out of Labour, despite Corbyn routinely voting against the government. Blair understood the value of giving dissent an outlet. That’s why Blair was one of the best Prime Ministers this country has had and why Starmer, well, isn’t.

Refusing to tolerate a handful of rebels when you have a majority of 167 doesn’t make you a strong leader, it makes you a weak leader.

That isn't entirely fair. Starmer had to get a grip on the Corbyn clowns and show them who is boss. It is easy to tolerate some dissent when there are only 1 or 2 cranks. Sadly the Labour party was full of them when Starmer took charge.

I would also suggest Blair ( or at least Campbell!) had a better grip on the media. They could limit crank media exposure. That isn't as easy today with social media and the prevalence of crank media desperate for controversy and clicks.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Feb 2025 ==

whereas Starmer completely misreads it and ignores all the signs - just look at the Winter Fuel Allowance,

Does he? Or does the right wing owned media simply present everything he does as wrong which leads the hard of thinking to agree? I have no problem with applying the winter fuel allowance only to those who really need it.

 

[takno]

I think Blair was a politician first and lawyer second (in approach priorities, behaviour etc, not careerwise) whereas Starmer still acts like a lawyer and is not a natural leader.

Blair could read the country, or had good advisors - witness how he reacted and led the queen after Princess Diana died - whereas Starmer completely misreads it and ignores all the signs - just look at the Winter Fuel Allowance, the freebies etc.

I'm looking at the winter fuel allowance and WASPI women, and I'm seeing policies which in the context of current government spending and demographic trends are pretty much essential, and which will probably play reasonably well with the wider electorate within a year or so.

I'm also seeing a leadership which isn't especially happy about making the decisions it has been forced into. In the oh-so-brave martyred rebels, I'm seeing an extremist wing which is entirely dedicated to trying to weaponise the realities of government against their own party, and won't stop until they are dealt with. It's a combination of revisionism and pure fantasy to imagine that Blair faced with similar problems reacted in some brilliant instinctively better way.

 

[Yew]

Unfortunately, unless Starmer take some initiative from the left on monetary policy and starts to distance the country from the economic legacy of Thatcher, I don't see how he can stave off the rise of the far-right. Blair got away with Thatcherite economics, but that was in good economic times, when PPI wasn't realised for the bad deal that it was.

I was quite positive about Kier, but it seems that when he talks about investment, he is talking about foreign private equity that is looking to make a profit, not the state investing in the country to increase tax receipts in the future.

 

[takno]

Unfortunately, unless Starmer take some initiative from the left on monetary policy and starts to distance the country from the economic legacy of Thatcher, I don't see how he can stave off the rise of the far-right. Blair got away with Thatcherite economics, but that was in good economic times, when PPI wasn't realised for the bad deal that it was.

I was quite positive about Kier, but it seems that when he talks about investment, he is talking about foreign private equity that is looking to make a profit, not the state investing in the country to increase tax receipts in the future.

There's a massive programme of state investment as well. The size of that is slightly limited by sticking to the rather conservative dictats of the OBR, but it's substantial. The trouble is that as a country we badly need investment from both the state and the private sector to improve our wretched productivity. The state's portion is mostly in infrastructure, education and health, while the private sector would be expected to invest in enterprises which provide well-paid jobs and directly generate wealth.

We're a long way from Thatcherite monetarism. Government debt is high, and public spending outside of debt servicing isn't especially low - it's just not being well-spent. We are hugely more exposed than we were in the 1970s to a global economy which we can't begin to control, and there's zero chance people will accept a return to currency controls or heavily-controlled imports. It's neither monetarist or Thatcherite to understand the diminished role of UK in general, and the UK government in particular.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm looking at the winter fuel allowance and WASPI women, and I'm seeing policies which in the context of current government spending and demographic trends are pretty much essential, and which will probably play reasonably well with the wider electorate within a year or so.

I’d agree with that.

The Women Against State Pension Inequality also really really annoy me, because what they’re actually upset about is not being able to retire at 60. Given I’ll not retire until at least 68, and it’s more likely to be 70, my sympathy remains somewhat muted.

Same with the Winter Fuel Allowance, it ought to be means tested and the only sensible way of means testing it is to link it to the Pension Credit means test. I do have sympathy for people who are less than £6 a week above the Pension Credit threshold- and perhaps they ought to have upped the threshold by £6 a week to protect these people- but beyond that, again nope.

As for the farmers, well.

In the oh-so-brave martyred rebels, I'm seeing an extremist wing which is entirely dedicated to trying to weaponise the realities of government against their own party, and won't stop until they are dealt with

They’re a small number of headbangers. A government with a majority of 167 ought to be able to cope with having a few headbangers in its midst. Blair, with a smaller majority, was quite comfortable with having Corbyn on the back benches despite him mostly being a pain in the backside. Martyring them gave them more media exposure than simply ignoring them would have done.

And I’ll tell you what: Starmer wouldn’t have done what he did if he actually only had a majority of 6.

Starmer’s getting all his advice from Morgan McSweeney and it really shows. It was all about settling scores. McSweeney is as dangerous to Labour as Dominic Cummings was to the Tories for exactly the same reason: he’s more interested in settling scores than governing.

The “realities of government” are that Starmer can find billions and billions to give to BAe for bombs but can’t find a few million to lift the poorest children out of poverty. That’s a political choice, not a political necessity.

 

[takno]

The “realities of government” are that Starmer can find billions and billions to give to BAe for bombs but can’t find a few million to lift the poorest children out of poverty. That’s a political choice, not a political necessity.

The rise in defence spending is almost unpolitical at this point. There isn't any real choice involved - this isn't the Iraq war, it's about being at least slightly prepared for a starkly worsening global security environment. If you want to view it in a more progressive light then it's also quite possibly our ticket back into a closer relationship with Europe which avoids difficult red lines.

I do agree that the 2-child limit is probably the biggest running sore at the moment, and finding a way to progressively resolve that earlier was probably a mistake. They could have progressively removed it throughout parliament, starting with the under-3s say, and covered the cost by progressively removing the fuel duty discount. On the other hand there are a few more years to go, and a more cynical take is that this can be saved as an action to demonstrate that the public finances are on a better footing and generate goodwill closer to the election.

 

[Magdalia]

She was (temporarily) thrown out.

Suspension from the parliamentary party is not being thrown out, that's expulsion.

Suspensions, of varying lengths, are sanctions available to the party whips for doing things like not following three line whips.

A government with a majority of 167 ought to be able to cope with having a few headbangers in its midst.

It is coping, and one of the ways of doing that is drawing clear boundaries on what dissent is permitted and what isn't. No well run government allows voting against three line whips without sanction. Long Bailey, and the others who voted against a three line whip, knew what was coming and made their choice.

 

[MotCO]

I'm looking at the winter fuel allowance and WASPI women, and I'm seeing policies which in the context of current government spending and demographic trends are pretty much essential, and which will probably play reasonably well with the wider electorate within a year or so.

I didn't mention the WASPI issue, since I probably think it was the right decision. However, for both WASPI and WFA, why actively campaign for it / accuse the Tories for 4,000 additional deaths if they enacted it respectively, only then to do the opposite / introduce it themselves?

I do not think that the general public will accept such hypocrisy come the next election. That is not being politically tactically aware. Ditto the farmers issue when the amounts raised are expected insignificant in the overall scheme of things, but extremely painful for cash-poor asset- rich farmers.

 

[Magdalia]

There's a massive programme of state investment as well. The size of that is slightly limited by sticking to the rather conservative dictats of the OBR, but it's substantial. The trouble is that as a country we badly need investment from both the state and the private sector to improve our wretched productivity. The state's portion is mostly in infrastructure, education and health, while the private sector would be expected to invest in enterprises which provide well-paid jobs and directly generate wealth.

We're a long way from Thatcherite monetarism. Government debt is high, and public spending outside of debt servicing isn't especially low - it's just not being well-spent. We are hugely more exposed than we were in the 1970s to a global economy which we can't begin to control, and there's zero chance people will accept a return to currency controls or heavily-controlled imports. It's neither monetarist or Thatcherite to understand the diminished role of UK in general, and the UK government in particular.

This is a very good analysis.

The main point that I would add is that, without a return to economic growth, driven by profitable enterprises providing well paid jobs, then the UK public finances are unsustainable and will hit a crunch point. Hopefully I won't still be here if that happens.

 

[takno]

I do not think that the general public will accept such hypocrisy come the next election. That is not being politically tactically aware. Ditto the farmers issue when the amounts raised are expected insignificant in the overall scheme of things, but extremely painful for cash-poor asset- rich farmers.

I don't think the general public are strongly opposed to the changes, and hypocrisy whilst doing something you agree with tends to be regarded as more "doing the right thing when it comes to the crunch". In any case, whilst the press, and to an extent voters, do care about hypocrisy, it's usually regarding things that have been done in recent memory.

The Labour party will be doing really well if hypocrisy about WFA is the main thing people have to complain about in 4 years time. I just can't see anybody working up any real rage in the polling booth because Keir Starmer said something 6 years ago and then changed his mind to agree with what they already thought a year later.

 

[Tetchytyke]

On the other hand there are a few more years to go, and a more cynical take is that this can be saved as an action to demonstrate that the public finances are on a better footing and generate goodwill closer to the election.

I think there has been a deliberate policy to get the bad stuff out of the way early. It certainly makes sense politically, there’s so long to the election and plenty of time to start wheeling out the good news story.

My only fear is that they will have let Farage get a stranglehold on things long before then. Major’s government had overseen quite a lot of economic improvement by the time 1997 rolled around, something Brown rode on the coat tails of. But their reputation had been utterly destroyed long before that so they never saw the electoral benefit.

 

[styles]

I think there has been a deliberate policy to get the bad stuff out of the way early. It certainly makes sense politically, there’s so long to the election and plenty of time to start wheeling out the good news story.

Agreed about this.

However I also think it's been a bit silly, politically, to announce controversial changes as standalone policies.

You sort of think, ok you want to means test the pensioners' winter fuel payment, fine; but why not package that up along with a bunch of other measures so you don't have weeks of media attention focussing on a single issue which divides voters? Also if you bundle it up as part of a comprehensive budget, rather than a standalone policy, you can point to where you're increasing pensioners' income to argue that it is part of a comprehensive package which will be offset for those most in need.

I'm not saying for every single policy this should be the case, but they must've known their contentious policies were contentious and would give them grief.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Feb 2025 ==

Looks like Mike Amesbury MP has had his custodial sentence suspended: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8yy0116y8o

MP Mike Amesbury, who admitted repeatedly punching a constituent in the street, has had his 10-week prison sentence suspended following an appeal.

The Runcorn and Helsby MP assaulted Paul Fellows, 45, following a row in Frodsham, Cheshire, last year and was jailed by magistrates on Monday.

Amesbury, who had the Labour whip removed in October, launched an appeal and a judge said that while the length of the sentence had been "spot on", it should be suspended for two years.

Judge Steven Everett, sitting with two magistrates at Chester Crown Court, also ordered Amesbury to carry out 200 hours of unpaid work.

Amesbury must also undertake an alcohol monitoring programme, go on an anger management course, and carry out 20 days of rehabilitation work.

I must admit that while I don't condone what he did, it seemed odd to actually lock him up given the sheer number of people who carry out similar assaults (perhaps without the whole, "I'm an MP don't you know!", attitude) and don't end up behind bars, even those with existing criminal records unlike Amesbury.

 

[DarloRich]

Starmer seems to have done well in Washington, much to the annoyance of the usual "patriotic" subjects, but we need to remember hat what Trump said yesterday could change today!

I must admit that while I don't condone what he did, it seemed odd to actually lock him up given the sheer number of people who carry out similar assaults (perhaps without the whole, "I'm an MP don't you know!", attitude) and don't end up behind bars, even those with existing criminal records unlike Amesbury.

the aggravating factor is surely that he is an MP and thus held to a higher standard and that failing to meet that standard will result in an example being made of you.

 

[styles]

the aggravating factor is surely that he is an MP and thus held to a higher standard and that failing to meet that standard will result in an example being made of you.

Not according to the sentencing guidelines (for England & Wales anyway).

And to be honest I think the MP side of things will sort itself out - he's had the party whip withdrawn, is now subject to a recall petition, and under pressure to resign before his constituents make him.

 

[DarloRich]

Is this worth throwing away ministerial office for?

International Development Minister Anneliese Dodds has resigned over the prime minister's cuts to the aid budget.

Earlier this week, Sir Keir Starmer announced funding would be reduced from 0.5% of gross national income to 0.3% in 2027 in order to fund an increase in defence spending.

International Development Minister Anneliese Dodds quits over aid cuts

Dodds delayed her resignation until after Keir Starmer's meeting with President Trump, saying he had needed a united cabinet.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[styles]

Is this worth throwing away ministerial office for?

International Development Minister Anneliese Dodds quits over aid cuts

Dodds delayed her resignation until after Keir Starmer's meeting with President Trump, saying he had needed a united cabinet.

www.bbc.co.uk

I suppose it's unusual for people to resign on principle these days, until something becomes a media frenzy at least, but it's at least refreshing?

FWIW, this represents a 40% cut in the aid budget - it's not a minor tweak.

 

[DarloRich]

I suppose it's unusual for people to resign on principle these days, until something becomes a media frenzy at least, but it's at least refreshing?

I guess so.

FWIW, this represents a 40% cut in the aid budget - it's not a minor tweak.

But one many ( especially the hard of thinking) will be happy to see!

 

[styles]

I guess so.

But one many ( especially the hard of thinking) will be happy to see!

Oh absolutely - I suspect this kind of change would win a popular vote, particularly as the money is being reallocated to defence which, I think even many conditional pacifists may support at this point. It's also got cross-party support as Badenoch was in the Commons praising the move.

 

[edwin_m]

But one many ( especially the hard of thinking) will be happy to see!

I think that might be the point. A bit like Labour's approach to topics such as immigration, it does rather smack of appeasing Farage. If the government adopts one of his policies then he can just crow about it and start proposing something more extreme, confident that he's not going to be in a position to be able to carry it out.

Having said that, it's difficult to see how else any extra defence spending could have been found quickly without serious damage elsewhere.

 

[geoffk]

Having said that, it's difficult to see how else any extra defence spending could have been found quickly without serious damage elsewhere.

We've discussed a wealth tax above. Another option would be to use the frozen Russian assets held in the UK and EU but this would need international co-operation. "Europe has to act quickly, and I believe we should move from freezing assets to seizing assets," David Lammy told parliament when asked if he would support emergency legislation to seize and repurpose the assets to support Ukraine. (Reuters)

 

[Tetchytyke]

Ditto the farmers issue when the amounts raised are expected insignificant in the overall scheme of things, but extremely painful for cash-poor asset- rich farmers.

The farmers affected by IHT changes are certainly asset rich, but any of them who claim they are cash poor are simply liars.

Is this worth throwing away ministerial office for?

Yes. It's refreshing to see a politician have principles and stick to them.

It's also got cross-party support as Badenoch was in the Commons praising the move.

If Kemi Badenoch is agreeing it's a good idea then that, if nothing else, should be setting off 300 decibel alarm bells inside Starmer's head.

A bit like Labour's approach to topics such as immigration, it does rather smack of appeasing Farage. If the government adopts one of his policies then he can just crow about it and start proposing something more extreme

It's all about appeasing Reform. And it's an utterly stupid thing to do.

Nobody goes to see the pub tribute act when the original band are in town.

Another option would be to use the frozen Russian assets held in the UK and EU but this would need international co-operation. "Europe has to act quickly, and I believe we should move from freezing assets to seizing assets," David Lammy told parliament

There aren't anywhere near as many frozen Russian assets in the UK as you'd imagine. Governments across Europe gave sanctioned people months of advance warning as to what they were going to do, any assets of note or value were squirrelled away long before the sanctions hit. Sanctioned people generally directly own jack, everything was and still is in someone else's name, usually through layers of nominee shareholdings and trusts set up by any number of dodgy Trust and Corporate Service Providers (TCSPs) in places like Malta and Cyprus.

That's also where the issues with a wealth tax start to come in. UK Companies House is basically a giant fraud robot these days, anyone can set up any number of companies and essentially no checks are carried out. Companies House say they're going to start carrying out checks but I'll believe it when I see it. I would have no faith that any information held about controlling interests in companies is accurate; I wouldn't even have much faith that half these people even exist.

So actually 'following the money' and seeing who owns what is basically impossible without a significant level of forensic accounting, the types of investigations that take years and face legal challenges at every stage.

 

[Blackpool boy]

just look at the Winter Fuel Allowance

i remember l;ots of alarming news stories about people dying during winter if they didnt get the winter fuel payment - which is about £6 per week ( wouldnt cover the service charge on prepayment meters) and i dont remember seeing any news stopries of people actually dying because of losing the winter fuel payment - so I guess it was a right move to do

 

[DarloRich]

Yes. It's refreshing to see a politician have principles and stick to them.

I find it a touch "performative naivety". Look at the world we live in at the present time. it is mental!

I am torn about the decision to cut foreign aid but i think it is the decision i would make in the circumstances. I don't think the alternative of increase general taxation will fly at this time. We DO have to make sure that we don't flush away lots of soft power in cutting this spending.

I get that with USAID being, erm, closed down there is a gap and an opportunity for someone else. I also get that if we or someone else sensible doesn't fill that gap we will let China and Russia do so and lose out soft power leverage. I get it. I hope we can use the remaining aid budget to target on projects of real benefit.

( btw - i am not on the look afta r vetrans and homelass first bus!)

Having said that, it's difficult to see how else any extra defence spending could have been found quickly without serious damage elsewhere.

Exactly - we cant really cut from, say, education or the NHS. We are also not performing

There aren't anywhere near as many frozen Russian assets in the UK as you'd imagine.

There is £2.5bn of Abramovich's money floating about somewhere! He handed it over when he sold Chelsea.

 

[MotCO]

i remember l;ots of alarming news stories about people dying during winter if they didnt get the winter fuel payment - which is about £6 per week ( wouldnt cover the service charge on prepayment meters) and i dont remember seeing any news stopries of people actually dying because of losing the winter fuel payment - so I guess it was a right move to do

If it isn't true, why did Labour's own research reveal 4,000 expected additional deaths if the Tories introduced the cut? Why would a Labour cut not increase the number of deaths but a Tory cut would?

The farmers affected by IHT changes are certainly asset rich, but any of them who claim they are cash poor are simply liars.

Evidence?

 

[edwin_m]

Another option would be to use the frozen Russian assets held in the UK and EU but this would need international co-operation. "Europe has to act quickly, and I believe we should move from freezing assets to seizing assets," David Lammy told parliament when asked if he would support emergency legislation to seize and repurpose the assets to support Ukraine.

I suggest there's a difference between giving these to Ukraine, who are directly the victim of Russian agression, and confiscating them for us to spend on our own defence.

There aren't anywhere near as many frozen Russian assets in the UK as you'd imagine. Governments across Europe gave sanctioned people months of advance warning as to what they were going to do, any assets of note or value were squirrelled away long before the sanctions hit. Sanctioned people generally directly own jack, everything was and still is in someone else's name, usually through layers of nominee shareholdings and trusts set up by any number of dodgy Trust and Corporate Service Providers (TCSPs) in places like Malta and Cyprus.

If I recall correctly about half of the Russian state's cash reserves were in Europe, mostly Continental countries I think, plus a smaller amount in the US. These were quickly frozen at the start of the war. Some of the interest has since been used to support Ukraine but they haven't touched the principal.

 

[Yew]

We DO have to make sure that we don't flush away lots of soft power in cutting this spending.

We already cut a lot under Johnson, with the closure of DFID, even then we were at the point where NGOs were coming into the room to talk to leaders with more cash than our Government.

I get that with USAID being, erm, closed down there is a gap and an opportunity for someone else. I also get that if we or someone else sensible doesn't fill that gap we will let China and Russia do so and lose out soft power leverage. I get it. I hope we can use the remaining aid budget to target on projects of real benefit.

My worry is exactly that, China already does a lot with its "Belts and Roads" initiatives, and that money does come with strings attached - and we have just given up our counter-leverage

 

[takno]

My worry is exactly that, China already does a lot with its "Belts and Roads" initiatives, and that money does come with strings attached - and we have just given up our counter-leverage

I think it's pretty fanciful to imagine that our foreign aid budget was having much impact against the belts and roads initiative tbh. 1% of our GDP spread widely can be used to slightly encourage positive feeling about our culture, and to do a little more than nothing on healthcare. It isn't enough to do any concrete investment though.

 

[The Ham]

But one many ( especially the hard of thinking) will be happy to see!

The problem is that it's hard to see what the aid budget does (or perhaps more importantly what it stops from happening).

An interesting case study was Ebola. The UK was second to the USA in total aid given, if that had not been stopped, the cost to the UK from even a limited number of cases a year wide have been significant.

According to someone who was on the ground dealing with (that I've spoken to) they were concerned that at it's peak that it may have got beyond being controlled. Fortunately, it didn't quite get that far and it was contained.

Going from 0.7% to 0.5% was bad enough, cutting it further to 0.3% (so less than half the original amount) isn't great.

Having said that, given the Tories were using it to pay for asylum seekers to stay here rather than process their applications, the actual cut might not be as bad as the headline figure implies.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Evidence?

The best example The Times could come up with of a “cash poor farmer” was John Kemp-Welch, multi-millionaire former chairman of the London Stock Exchange.

You had “Tom Fairfax” whining a few weeks ago in The Guardian about how IHT would “destroy” his small family farm of just the 1,000 acres. Tom was keen on highlighting how he stood to suffer the loss of land to his family and how poor and downtrodden he was. Of course little old poor Tom comes from twelve generations of landed gentry, the Lords Fairfax of Cameron.

Anyone who gets a IHT bill after c.£3m of disregards and says they can’t pay it over ten years is, quite simply a liar. They don’t want to, of course they don’t; who does want to pay tax really? But can’t and won’t are not the same thing.

 

[Ghostbus]

The mistakes are starting to stack up. He'll soon be unable to shake the tag, the narrative, the perception. This is how politics works. It's absolutely idiotic to have your own ministers resigning in protest at your decision making. There are difficult decisions and there are stupid decisions, and this is very much the latter.

He's starting to look politically naive, and certainly not very competent even on the policy wonkery side of things. Reform voters don't want a 0.2% cut to the foreign aid budget, they want it gone. Never going to vote Reform Labour voters certainly don't want increased UK defence funding coming from cuts that make the world less safe. If this stupid decision actually adds to the push effect of immigration from failed states where you can't even get your kids clean drinking water or vital medicine, wow.

To see a Labour Prime Minister being praised by the Leader of Opposition, when that person is someone as moronic and frankly irrelevant as Kemi Badenoch, is an absolute embrassment.

Nobody wants one third of the UK's military committed to a never ending peace mission in Ukraine, except of course Trump. That would certainly be a good idea if you genuinely believed we were headed for a new Cold War with Russia so we might as well grow our economy and keep our troops ready so we can win it in 50 years time. But I can't be the only person who is hoping for a bit more actual leadership from our Prime Minister.