Mr Brightside: Tick tock, tick tock… 

 

“Yeah, time is on my side, yes it is 

Time is on my side, yes it is” 

Is time really on Starmer’s side? 

 
To date, most of what we have seen is Labour prepping us for some tax rises and spending cuts, blamed, as Sir Kier keeps tell us, on his government inheriting “not just an economic black hole but a societal black hole”, adding that “this is why we have to take action and do things differently. Part of that is being honest with people about the choices we face. And how tough this will be.” 

Already signs of stress are appearing. Before her first budget 30 October, chancellor Reeves is facing calls to perform a U-turn, and the threat of rebellion, over her recent announcement to limit the winter fuel payment to only the poorest pensioners. 

This became ever more prevalent last week after the energy ­regulator announced that gas and electricity prices would be rising by 10% this winter. 

Following this, party grandee Harriet Harman gently hinted that the party might have to shift its position and adopt “a different cut-off point” for winter fuel payments. 
 

‘Reeves is facing calls to perform a U-turn, and the threat of rebellion, over her recent announcement to limit the winter fuel payment to only the poorest pensioners’

 
Many Labour MPs are furious that a policy to restrict winter fuel payments was announced shortly before the pricing decision by the energy regulator, which had been known about and predicted for many months. One Labour MP said the worry was that “old people will get ill and will die”, adding: “Old people won’t put on the heating – they don’t like getting into debt. It is not what they do. We have to move on this.” 

The PM continues to argue that sacrifices now are the only way to get long-term benefits for the whole of society: “I won’t shy away from making unpopular decisions now if it’s the right thing for the country in the long term. That’s what a government of service means.” 

We are continually told this is the cost of a profligate end to 14-yrs of Tory misery, but there will come a time when that no longer washes. 

One subject that hasn’t gone away, but hasn’t explicitly dominated the headlines is immigration.  

Whilst Rwanda has thankfully been consigned to history, Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, has revisited Conservative plans from 2022, to reopen two defunct immigration detention centres, together with 100 new intelligence officers to target people-smuggling gangs. 

Immigration presents a conundrum for Starmer, the opposition continue with the narrative that Labour is going soft on small boats, while refugee charities warn that the new government is perpetuating a punitive narrative that vilifies vulnerable people.  

There is a need police our borders, but this has to be balanced with the moral and diplomatic issues based on our treaty obligations, and the economic problems created by the shortage of skilled-workers that can be overcome by immigration. 

This sums up the nature of the challenge; there is unlikely to be a solution that pleases everyone. The people-smugglers are servicing demand, possibly because there is no safe legal routes for refugees to reach the UK. Deporting those who have no right to be in Britain is a necessary function of the state, but this should be done within humanitarian confines. 

As is often the case, the silent majority are open-minded, accepting the need for fair rules, properly enforced, operated in a spirit of openness to the outside world and compassion for people fleeing conflict and persecution. 

Immigration continues to be a large part of what Brexiters expected when they voted “Leave”. As with everything else that was expected from Brexit all that has been achieved is disappointment and self-sacrifice on the altar of nationalism. 
 

‘all that has been achieved is disappointment and self-sacrifice on the altar of nationalism’

 
Staying with Europe, this week the PM said he was “delighted” to be back in Germany “at this moment of opportunity for our two countries”, as he announced a new UK-Germany treaty, describing it as a “once in a generation chance to deliver for working people in Britain and in Germany”. 

Starmer continued, saying: “A new agreement, a testament to the depth an potential of our relationship. With deeper links on science, technology, development, people, business [and] culture. A boost to our trading relations. 

“Germany, of course already the UK’s second largest trading partner in the world, and through that a chance to create jobs here and in the United Kingdom. And to deliver that most precious of goods for both of our countries: economic growth.” 

This column was born out of Brexit, which in itself was a series of lies and delusion. Now we can add to the list of failings that of our European summer holidays as rules changes within the EU make travelling more difficult.  

The first change is the EU’s new entry/exit system that will replace the current stamping of UK passports in November. This electronic system will require most non-EU travellers (including the British) to most European countries to have their photo and fingerprints checked along with their passports. The second change is the EU’s prior authorisation travel system (Etias), which is expected to start in the first half of 2025. This will require most non-EU visitors (again including the British) to complete the relevant forms online before travelling, at the cost of €7 for each three-year Etias authorisation. 

Whilst both the UK and US have similar schemes for visitors, it is highly likely that the introductory months will at best cause some unforeseen queues and delays, and at worst confusion. 
 

‘Now we can add to the list of failings that of our European summer holidays as rules changes within the EU make travelling more difficult’

 
Whilst Labour are more likely to welcome better relations with the EU then their predecessor who seemed to be constantly seeking conflicts, and, in-turn, the EU appears  better disposed towards the Starmer government than to its predecessors. However, any compromises offered to the UK will have implications for other non-EU countries such as Albania and Serbia, and Brussels will also need to be confident that a future Conservative government will not throw aside agreements made by Labour. 

In addition to travel, there have been reports that we want to ease freedom of movement controls to allow young Europeans to work and live in the UK prove to be accurate.  

The ball is very much in our court when it comes to relations with the EU. Restoring anything like a working relationship could involve us having to make considerable concessions, which is bound to trigger indignation from the usual quarters.  

This is something where the government needs to grasp the initiative, we have an overwhelming national interest in a closer and more harmonious relationship with Europe.  

Another area that is giving the Tories indigestion is public sector pay rises. Their policy was simply to turn a blind eye to the ongoing strikes and hope the issue went away; it didn’t. The new government has been proactive and settled the disputes, leading to claims that they are in the unions pockets. 

Leader ship hopeful, James Cleverly asked, “how much longer will Keir Starmer sell influence like this?” Robert Jenrick , his fellow leadership contender claimed Aslef had “humiliated the government”. 

I tackled this in last week’s article, “Is There Light at the End of the Tunnel? 

Now Richard Hyman, an emeritus professor of industrial relations at the London School of Economics, who has been examining Labour-union relations since the 1970s, said the idea of a party at the whim of union demands was inaccurate. 

It was, he said, too early to tell how Starmer’s government would deal with unions, especially before details emerged on the legislation to increase employment rights. 

“Clearly, it looks more favourable – with reservations – to the trade union agenda than it ever was under the Conservatives, and probably than it ever was under Blair”. 

However, he added, whatever the claims about sinister “paymasters”, unions were likely to have little choice but to accept whatever emerged: “To a large degree that’s probably the case. The unions have their own priorities, and are looking for some sort of response from a Labour government. The problem for them, as it always has been, is that they’ve got nowhere else to go.” 

Starmer promised us “change”. He has goodwill in the bank, and the excuse of Tory mismanagement, this  buys him time while new ministers are excused for the dismal state of things that can’t reasonably be called their fault. 

The real question is for how long? How long can he go on enjoying the benefit of the doubt?  

This week told us that the mess his government inherited will take at least a decade to fix. He told us that only after taking power was the full scale of the Tories negligence revealed, and as a result, things would get worse before they got better. 
 

‘The real question is for how long? How long can he go on enjoying the benefit of the doubt?’

 
The Tories are struggling to defend their legacy, instead they are attempt to undermine the integrity of their successors, citing senior civil service appointments that have gone to figures with records of partisan allegiance to Labour and links to party donations.  

Whilst downing Street insists that no rules have been broken and no protocols subverted, and that there can be no comparison with Johnson-era scandals, voters are primed to think all politicians are corrupt.  

I have already talked about the backlash over means test winter fuel payments. Alienating pensioners is always a perilous move and curtailing a universal entitlement was bound to foment anxiety among Labour MPs.  

It appears that the PM is betting on the public having the requisite patience to understand how difficult a task the government have inherited. I suspect the test of this will come in the media, with a Tory-centric press stirring-up discontent. 

In his favour might be the fact that 4-years of Johnson’s bluster and bravado has been seen through by the electorate. During the election campaign people appreciated his we have “no magic wand”, however will they still be so appreciative when the government deals out what looks like austerity? 

At least settling the public sector pay disputes does some rapid improvement in the quality of government. The political capital the Tories tried to make out of this is, firstly, incorrect, and secondly only resonates with a dwindling pool of voters. 
 

‘settling the public sector pay disputes does some rapid improvement in the quality of government’

 
Starmer might also benefit from the Tories selecting a more of the same, unrepentant leader that is in denial as to why the party was humiliated in the election; currently, all of the candidates fit that template. 

My conclusion is that Starmer is going to have a hard job justifying what looks like austerity. 

He tells is he “didn’t want to means-test the winter fuel payment, ”it was  “a choice to protect the most vulnerable pensioners, while doing what is necessary to repair the public finances.” The expected saving is £1.4bn this financial year. How this will pay – as the PM claimed – for a “functioning NHS”, which runs on a budget of £182bn, is unclear. 
 

‘How much time do they have? Unfortunately, they won’t know until it’s expired’

 
If this continues the government will be cutting department budgets and taxing people more. That is the definition of austerity. Despite claims to the contrary these cuts will be impact those most in need, irrespective of whether they are funded by tax increases from those with “broadest shoulders should bear the heavier burden”. 

Labour’s strategy appears to be based on not being locked-in to concrete ideas, instead they want voters to be patient while they gets on with governing. The problem is that the public aren’t stupid, and they can see and hear the gloom spreading out from No.10. 

Starmer’s enemy is the clock. The longer voters have to wait for the expected changes, and experience more of the same, the more Labour’s support will drift away.  

How much time do they have? Unfortunately, they won’t know until it’s expired. 

“Time, he’s waiting in the wings 

He speaks of senseless things 

His script is you and me, boy” 

 

‘It’s been a strange and unexpected start from our new government.

There is very little that is positive, a great deal that is negative, all sold on the basis that the previous lot were useless.

The problem is that people get tired of excuses, that only works for so long. Also, they don’t expect to hear problems, a government is elected to offer solutions.

The problem Labour has is that they are more and more resembling a Tory tribute act. This is what I feared when I dubbed Starmer, “light-blue Kier”.

Their proposed economic policy looks strangely like more of the same; austerity, driven by cuts and tax increases to balance the budget, with the hope that this stimulates growth. Why it will be different this time, I really don’t know.

This feels like 1980s Thatcherism, all we need now is 3-million unemployed. Even the two-child benefit cap is still in-place!

The question is why is Labour a Tory tribute act? The answer is they don’t know any difference. The PM was born in 1962, the chancellor in 1979; all they have known is Thatcherism, supply-side policies. Even the Blair years were little different.

This is part of a larger problem, in as much as the majority of the electorate are no different. Those that are older enough to remember when Labour were actually Labour predominantly vote Tory or Reform, and revere Thatcher and her policies.

All we know is low taxes, small state, and free-markets know best.

Where have all the socialists gone? If the Guardian readership is anything to go on they form about 10% of the electorate.

Yes we have a new government, but the change feels to be in name only.

This article, and the ones that immediately preceded it, have one overriding theme; time. How much time will the public allow Labour to provide the feel good factor?

Not as long as it took Oasis to reform.

Lyrically, we avoid the quarrelsome brothers and their trite, Slade influenced terrace anthems. Instead we concentrate on real legends. We open with the Stones and “Time is on my side”, and we close with Bowie’s “Time” Enjoy!

Philip. 

 

@coldwarsteve
 

        

Philip Gilbert is a city-based corporate financier, and former investment banker.

Philip is a great believer in meritocracy, and in the belief that if you want something enough you can make it happen. These beliefs were formed in his formative years, of the late 1970s and 80s

Click on the link to see all Brexit Bulletins: