What is the point of this Labour government?
I don't know about you, but I'm really not sure what the point of the Labour government in Westminster is.
I was reasonably happy when Labour won the General Election in 2024, although admittedly my feelings were probably more of relief at the Conservatives being ousted. I may not have been overly pleased at how disproportionate the outcome was, with Labour securing 411 seats with 33.7% of the vote, but I couldn't really argue with voters returning just 121 Conservative MPs - the party's worst performance since the emergence of party politics in the 18th century. Rishi Sunak's party lost so badly because they deserved to.
But I think it's also fair to say that a lot of us hoped for better from Keir Starmer's Labour Party. Some - myself included - may naturally distrust their authoritarian and centralising instincts, but we expected a government that was more in touch, that was kinder and more socially responsible. I didn't expect an ambitious policy programme and imagined that Labour would, perhaps inevitably, have to make compromises and not go as far as some would like in terms of action. But I made an assumption that a party that talked in broad terms about fairness, ethics and equality would actually pay lip service to its own rhetoric.
I'll tell you what I expected - a kinder government. No doubt, as a Liberal Democrat, I would find many areas on which to disagree, but I honestly felt we would be dealing with a government that would be kinder, especially towards our most vulnerable citizens.
Eight months on, to say that the Labour government has been disappointing is something of an understatement. At every opportunity Labour has opted to shoot themselves in the foot. To use sporting parlance, the number of unforced errors from Labour has been staggering. This may be amusing to watch if the situation was not so serious. Rachel Reeves, hailed as some kind of economic genius and groomed for the Chancellorship for years, has come to personify Labour failure. She has rapidly become a political liability and her bog policy announcements - the winter fuel allowance and inheritance tax on farms - have proved disastrous, in part due to Reeves' shambolic handling.
The Chancellor evidently lacks tactical nous. She's also clearly working under constraints. Neither of those are critical if the government can show it is trying to work in the interests of the country, and especially those who put their faith in it only a few months ago. Unfortunately, Ms Reeves is also lacking in something else altogether: empathy.
Does this matter? Well, yes. The Spring Statement underlines Labour's quandary and their misplaced priorities. In short, the need to find £5 billion of savings has resulted in the government's announcement of a string of public spending cuts that will disproportionately affect the most vulnerable citizens.
Ms Reeves said: “I think you can see through this spring statement how determined I am, how determined this government is, to live within the means that we set ourselves in the budget last year and to grow our economy because that is the way to sustainably improve living standards and have the money that we need for our public services.” Tellingly, Ms Reeves sees doubling down in the face of criticism - including from many Labour MPs - as an indicator of strength.
We can all see what matters to Ms Reeves and the government - and it is certainly not the wellbeing of disabled people. As Daisy Cooper, the Liberal Democrats' Treasury spokesperson, observed, "cutting public services that are already stretched is a false economy. Trying to bring down the welfare bill without fixing health and social care is a road to nowhere."
I don't always see eye to eye with Dan Hodges, but he was absolutely correct yesterday when he observed the "dangerous air of unreality surrounding today's statement. Both main parties again arguing amongst themselves how much working people and the poor should sacrifice to bail out Britain. Whilst simultaneously saying the wealthiest must be protected. It's politically unsustainable."
The Resolution Foundation issued a statement in which is said: "While reform to health and disability benefits is needed, the scale and last-minute nature of many of the changes announced today suggest that long-term change is playing second fiddle to short-term savings." Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, argued that "knocking a pound a week off the main rate of universal credit in order, it seems, to return the fiscal headroom to exactly where it was last October, really does risk undermining the idea that benefit reform, which is much needed, is being made for any reason other than chasing a fiscal number.”
But is is not Mr Johnson from the IFS who Labour should fear - it is the voters who believed that electing Labour was a vote for a fairer society and a more caring government. It is bad enough that the Chancellor wishes to balance the books on the backs of disabled people and seems to think the risk of putting 250,000 additional people into poverty is one worth taking; it is worse that this announcement has been made after a week or so of toxic and ill-informed political rhetoric on disability. While some of this has, inevitably, come from the US it has been frustrating that in Neurodiversity Celebration Week some of us have had to argue that autism, ADHD and dyspraxia are real conditions that affect so many people. Yesterday on BBC Politics Live, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Darren Jones, glibly compared devastating cuts to disability benefits with reducing his children's pocket money and asking them to get a Saturday job. It was crass, insensitive, offensive, indefensible and shameful - and typical of what we've come to expect from this government. A Labour government, no less.
Labour is not only complicit in perpetuating dehumanising ableist rhetoric; its cabinet ministers are directly responsible for this assault on dignity. What neither Ms Reeves nor Mr Jones seem to appreciate is how this makes them look in the eyes of the public. Already lacking political and economic credibility, they now also appear foolish, demeaning, uncaring and frankly out of touch.
It will be no surprise if, at the next General Election, voters reject "the party that doesn't care". If that happens, like the Tories' self-inflicted defeat last year, it will be fully merited.
I was speaking to a Labour supporter this morning who lives in Liverpool. He works in adult mental health services, He is very angry at the government and its lack of compassion, not to mention the impact the Chancellor's announcement will have on the people he works with. He no longer trusts Labour "to do the right thing", feels the government has betrayed the country and expressed surprise that everything has unraveled so quickly. "I thought they would have done a lot of positive things first and got people onside. Some big policy announcements about the NHS or social care, that kind of thing. Fairer taxes. But instead we get attacks on disabled people."
He also offered this view on the pending Runcorn and Helsby by-election, and predicted that Labour will lose. His wife works for a charity that supports asylum seekers, and he is outraged that the Labour candidate has called for a hotel housing asylum seekers to be closed. For him, this sends out a clear signal that Labour is uncaring to the point of being inhuman. He says he will probably vote Green for the foreseeable future.
In the absence of a Conservative revival, or even a credible opposition front bench, Labour's failures only feed Reform, What Labour ministers seem to have overlooked is that their massive parliamentary majority has always a questionable mandate and that their election campaign - focussed on winning rather than governing - created problems for the future with its failure to provide concrete promises. It's very hard to take credit for delivering on promises if you don't make them.
What no-one thought they were voting for was positive change, even if the precise nature of that change hadn't been clearly defined. No-one thought they were voting for harsh cuts targeting those who can least afford them.
For a lot of people, my friend included, it isn't clear what Labour stands for. It is governing for the sake of governing. It is not a government that is opposed to poverty; no-one seeking to combat poverty would make the statement the Chancellor did yesterday. Neither is it a government that supports a fair deal for people in most need, as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made clear. A government committed to social justice would neither behave in this way or make these kinds of statements. It is a government lacking in empathy, humanity and basic economic and political literacy.
Nye Bevan once quipped that "the right kind of leader for the Labour Party is a kind of desiccated calculating machine", a jibe aimed at Hugh Gaitskell. That was somewhat unfair on Gaitskell, but if Labour thinks that the unfeeling and uncaring approach from its current leadership is a platform for future success it is very much mistaken. A "calculating machine", even one that doesn't create misleading CVs and gets its sums right (the Chancellor has had to announce further welfare cuts after the OBR showed the initial package only saved £3.4 billion rather than the announced £5 billion), can never demonstrate that it cares. Many who voted Labour did so believing the party cared about people like them and would do what it could to deliver meaningful change to improve their lives.
Political failures can be forgiven if parties show themselves capable of learning from mistakes. Labour currently lacks the political insight to recognise that its current predicament is largely of its own making. The party may be in power but at present it is a government without purpose - and without a heart.
The UK deserves better. Labour supporters and members, many of whom believe their party should be at the forefront of tackling poverty and inequality, deserve better.
It may not be too late for Labour to turn the situation around, but to do this probably requires not only a change of front bench personnel but a change of culture in government. The government has to find something to stand for, otherwise it stands for nothing.
.
Comments