I watched most of Keir Starmer's speech yesterday morning. Several things stood out from it.
The first was that the vast majority was word salad. It was almost entirely meaningless. How or why anybody wrote it thinking that it would be relevant was hard to understand.
Second, Starmer treated his audience and the world beyond the room which he spoke with contempt when he suggested that everybody knows what a working person is when absolutely no Labour minister has been willing to define what they mean by this term when they have been asked to do so by the media. Apparently, the whole of his strategy is intended to serve the interests of these unidentifiable people and no one else, but because of the lack of definition, that is utterly meaningless. For more details, see this morning‘s video.
Third, whilst Starmer claimed that he was delighted that his chancellor will be the first woman in history to deliver a budget, he also seemed quite determined to announce as many of the measures that might be included within such a statement as possible. I came to the deeply unfortunate conclusion either he has no confidence in Rachel Reeves, or he has no confidence in the ability of a woman to deliver a Chancellor's speech because never, as far as I can recall, has a speech of this sort ever been made in anticipation of a budget by a Prime Minister before now.
Fourth, this speech also provided all the evidence that we might need of the almost total irrelevance of the proposals that his government is going to make. For example, £500 million of expenditure on social housing might, at cost, deliver only 2000 new homes of a size that a family could live in, and even then they might be small. That is really not enough to make a policy announcement about without the person making the delivery depending upon the fact that most people can't do maths as basic as this to work out how puny that announcement really was.
Similarly, the announcement of £1.4 billion to be spent on schools might imply expenditure of no more than £50,000 per school if, as I presume is the case, this sum is to be spent making good the backlog of repairs. Two decades ago, I was the chair of governors of the school that supposedly had a backlog of repairs that were estimated to cost in excess of £900,000. The sum that he is proposing is not going to make any real difference to the state of the country's schools as a consequence.
On top of that, by refusing to continue the £2 maximum bus fair, and by increasing it to £3 to save the square root of diddly squat in terms of overall government expenditure, he created yet another group of mainly vulnerable people in society to whom his government has now turned its attention and left them worse off.
I can only presume Starmer wanted some of the budget glory for himself now he is prime minister. As a consequence, he sought to steal the credit for some of the budget measures for himself. Doing so he showed what a fool he is. If he had left these issues as being Rachel Reeves's responsibility, he could have subsequently blamed her for the failures that they represent, and he could then have sacked her or moved her sideways. But, as it is now, he has to take ownership of them. I suspect he will come to regret that. This Budget will be his failure, too, now.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I suspect that the adoption of the ‘working people’ trope was simply a reflexive nod to Labour’s origins by a party that has turned its back on working people, and wasn’t given a moment’s serious thought.
“vast majority was word salad. It was almost entirely meaningless”
It was intended to be meaningless – it was intended to be performative – a bit of managerial speak to keep the more “on-side” newspapers in line.
Plenty of past blogs have noted the “managerial” aspect of what passes for “this gov”. The “dear leaders” speech was one example – & certainly would not be out of place in Pyongyang.
On a side note & ref housing, it would seem that at least in South Wales & near the environs of Port Talbot local councils are planning loads of new houses – farmers salivating (natch). Gentle readers will ask – is this the same PT where the steel works is closing and unemployment sky rocketing – yes. Which begs the question – who will buy these shiny new homes? (people with no jobs?) & keep in mind – the steelworks supported plenty of other companies – so plenty of knock-on effects. But not to worry, the “dear leader” has a speech lined up that will make everything better. Doubtless, they will turn PT into a……freeport – yeah, that’ll solve things.
Well said. I think that Sir Keir will end up being regarded as one of the most useless Prime Ministers the country has had and we have had several abysmal ones in the last few years! He and the Chancellor are out of their depth. The Conservatives must be thinking that they are in with a chance at the next election as memories of their incompetence fade and the current government is seen as a complete failure.
Where I live, the Vale of Aylesbury, the local Tories began the campaign to unseat the new and first ever Labour MP, Laura Kyrke-Smith, majority 500 odd, in August.
I am rapidly losing the will to live (not because of Starmer’s egregious government which is behaving entirely predictably) attempting to explain that the rise in bus fares is actually a big deal for people on low incomes.
For a person on minimum wage who uses the bus say three times a week to get to and from work, that will cost them an additional £24 a month/£288 a year on top of what they’re already paying.
And yes, of course, buying a bus pass would be a lot more cost effective (as pointed out by people who don’t have a scoobie about existing on minimum wage) but that requires having the money up front, a *luxury* denied to people who are poor.
Loving the ‘change’ from one set of neoliberal monsters to the next.
Much to agree with
Terry Pratchett encapsulated this in the Sam Vimes ‘Boots’ theory of socioeconomic unfairness”.
The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. … A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. … But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
That’s it
It’s the same with bus passes
Given the better quality boots last a lot longer, they also represent a far smaller environmental cost. Quality not quantity in a time of over-stressed natural resources & rising consequences of pollution needs an economic incentive.
After re-reading James K Galbraith’s Nation article published in 2010 and linked to on this blog it made me realise I’m very much a member of the Refusenik Party and very much don’t want to be a member or supporter of a version of The British Bankers Party which currently holds sway in this country. Keir Starmer is simply the most recent leader of that party and we should expect a great deal of propagandist word salad from him in support of this his true party the same applies to the mainstream media including the so-called progressive newspapers.
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/defense-deficits/
Thanks
Many thanks for that link – a brilliantly clear explanation.
Did Starmer make his budget announcements before or after Speaker Hoyle tore a strip off the Government front bench and Reeves in particular, yesterday for announcing budget measures in speeches and press interviews before telling parliament?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c80lvy3lnn1o
If it was after, then Starmer may get another rollicking today.
I watched Hoyle, and he looked rather upset, although not as upset as those on the receiving end of austerity will be, after the budget.
The latest joyful news for “working people” is a 50% hike in capped flat fares on buses, that’s £10/wk if you use the bus to get to work 5 days a week.
He is astonishingly politically inept. Or as Oliver Hardy used to almost say, “That’s another black hole you’ve gotten me into!”.
Much to agree with
Surely some in the Labour Party will realise Starmer isn’t fit for his job and will now be realising he needs to be replaced? It can’t happen too soon as he is not acting as a labour pm should, ie working for the people, the poor and all who are disadvantaged.
He is opening the door to extremism in 2029 in my view.
It’s not only Starmer who isn’t fit for his job, it’s the entire Labour Party who are entirely unfit to govern.
But who is there in the Labour party fit to replace Starmer?
Any decent Labour MP would have voted against means testing the winter fuel allowance. Few did. Those that did have been pushed out of the party. There are no, even adequate, Labour MP’s left with any integrity.
Yep!
I watch these announcements now with a certain amount of disdain, that is if I don’t just turn over or turn the TV off . All I see is hollow man in expensive glasses and clothes – an empty vessel of a prime minister.
All I would say in support of your blog is that in my line of work – house building – things are still too expensive.
It’s not the planning the system that will sort that out – that is a big lie. This is to do with cost of materials, supply chain issues and labour – all because of one of two elephants in the room – BREXIT. And 2nd elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about is interest rates which the government pretends it can nothing about.
As has been discussed here, our economy is dominated by private debt – the private sector runs on it, the financial sector is a monopolist rentier sector with its fingers in all the pies. So, correspondingly, we have inflation – everything is STILL twice, three times as expensive as it was. Prices are not going down in the building industry as much as we need – going back to some sort of normal. So for example, on my social housing schemes the costs of moving contaminated top soil off site and bringing in remediated soil (it is residential building scheme remember) by lorry after lorry load is now hugely expensive.
Something is making inflation stick. So to me that is BREXIT and interest rates. And to think we might sacrifice the planning system because of two areas of policy that Stymied is too cowardly to deal with. It would be a huge mistake.
But this is why Labour will fail on housing – and they do not seem to understand how it all works. Or maybe they just don’t care. They are ‘in power’ and that is something?
This is erstaz government – writ large.
Well it’s working for the bankers and the rich they don’t have to feel threatened much by either UK or EU governments!
“All I see is hollow man in expensive glasses and clothes – an empty vessel of a prime minister.”
How true . We have a historically useful phrase for this in Scotland – Toom tabard – an occupied but empty royal cloak.
The English expression is “fur coat and no knickers”! Is there a similar expression in welsh?
Well isn’t this just a cracking start to the Starmer revolution? The “working people” codswallop is really hitting home with those same working folk getting whacked by higher bus fares. Nothing says “we’re on your side” like making the oiks cough up a few extra quid every week just to get to the job that doesn’t pay ’em enough in the first place, eh? Brilliant optics there, Sir Keir, you muppet.
And those rousing spending pledges? Blimey, watch out, here comes the big money! A few mil for housing that’ll build approximately 12 new rabbit hutches. And billions for schools that should be just enough to finally get little Timmy’s primary a new khazi after 30 years of crumbling bogs. The builders are no doubt popping the champagne corks up and down the country.
But it’s the pre-budget budget that really takes the biscuit. Why even have a Chancellor if the PM’s going to just blurt out all the big announcements ahead of time, eh? At this rate, Rachel Reeves will just be handing out the complementary Parliament biscuits come budget day.
And of course, none of it actually tackles the very real economic argybargy of soaring prices and stagnant wages. But no no, that would require admitting the catastrophic impacts of Brexit and the Bank’s interest rate hawk policies. Can’t be having any of that wrong thinking from us mugs!
No, much better to just keep rearranging those deckchairs on the Titanic economy with feckless little spending trinkets. At least the City can rest easy knowing their bonuses are safe with Starmer’s Labour keeping up their end of the Brewster’s Millions-style act of pretending to govern for the people.
An illustration of how out of touch Westminster politicians can get…
From the PM’s latest speech
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-in-birmingham-28-october-2024
“Everyone who finds damp in their house – know they have a decision. Paint over it or strip it out, pull off the plaster, deal with it once and for all. ”
Anyone feel left out by that section? Any “working people” out there, who happen to rent rather than OWN their home?
The English (not UK) housing survey published in July this year
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-housing-survey-2022-to-2023-rented-sectors/english-housing-survey-2022-to-2023-rented-sectors
says, “The rented sectors make up 35% of households in England, with 4.6 million households in the private rented sector (19% of all households) and 4 million households in the social rented sector (16%).”
When tenants find damp in their home, they know their LANDLORD has a decision. But they have virtually no control over what happens to the damp that THEY have to live (or die) with. I wonder if that thought ever crossed Starmer’s mind? Or does he assume that all “working people” ARE owner-occupiers like him?
Or maybe he KNOWS that they aren’t, but it isn’t tenants that he is interested in. He’s ignoring an awful lot of households whether they have “working people” living in them or not.
He says the Chancellor will announce, “£240 million in funding to provide local services” – Wow! that’s about £3 for each of person in the country. I’m not sure what local services I might expect to get for THAT? But, you know, “black hole”….
It’s a dire speech almost devoid of content. But at least Starmer invites criticism of the budget and the government. He’s anticipating Conservative criticism of course, not criticism from the Keynesian left. But he does say this, “If people want to criticise the path we choose – that’s their prerogative. But let them then spell out a different direction. ”
Which is exactly what you are doing Richard and others. Trouble is, Starmer isn’t listening. He never does. But we can bombard our MPs with what that “different direction” looks like. And it starts not with “Stability” but with “Spending”, targeted to meet the most urgent needs and to do the most good in our country and for our planet, and using all the economic tools at the government’s disposal to create a balanced economy with inflation under control, available resources put to work, wealth redistributed and the control of the economy taken out of the hands of a destructive central bank and a self-serving Governor.
Thanks for picking that up. I thought that at the time but did not note it. I am glad you did.
social housing numbers rather like health – 40,000 more appointments each week, except already 275,000 hospital appointments/day so works out as 30 more appointments 5 days a week at each hospital! Not going to bring down waiting lists in a hurry.
No
It is within the normal range of variation in demand