According to the FT yesterday:
Deputy prime minister Angela Rayner, home secretary Yvette Cooper and justice secretary Shabana Mahmood raised concerns about the UK government's looming spending review at a “tense” cabinet session on Tuesday, people with knowledge of the meeting said.
They added:
According to one of the people, a “large minority” of Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer's cabinet protested about planned spending reductions in their own departments. Some also raised worries about plans for up to £6bn of welfare cuts expected to be set out next week.
Apparently Ed Miliband and Lucy Powell were amongst others to raise concerns.
There are three reasons for mentioning this. Firstly, there is some serious leaking going on here. It's taken a day or two to get out, but someone is talking, and the likelihood is that there is more than one person involved. There are some people in the Cabinet who are very angry with Starmer.
Second, it is notable that the leading opponents are all women. Starmer has a real problem with women, Rachel Reeves apart. All those listed for removal from posts in a forthcoming Cabinet reshuffle are, apparently, women. Bridget Phillipson apparently tops the list, and she appears to be deeply uncomfortable in her role at Education, but it seems that McSweeney and Starmer have a problem with women that is going to tear Labour apart.
Third, I strongly suspect some of these mentioned are already on leadership manoeuvres. Yvette Cooper seems to be the most likely.
I confess I am no fan of Cooper's. Her economics is as bad as Ed Ball's, to whom she is married. Her stance on many issues appears illiberal. If social democracy flows through her veins, it is very weakly. And maybe it is Rayner who is, in any event, leading the alternative pack.
But, I get the sense that Starmer and Reeves are no longer safe in their jobs. The Cabinet is realising how badly things are going and that change is needed. Starmer and Reeves can either deliver it, or the coup is on.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
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 hope so.
Reeve’s ‘doubling down’ speech on the economy yesterday was a typical non-event of this phony Labour administration.
The way politics is set up now is to cut off feedback loops and use political advisors more like enforcers for a certain line of policy.
I’d love to see how their focus groups are managed. I bet they are manipulated to deliver the ‘right direction’.
In principle Starmer is safe in his job with a large parliamentary majority. In practice he can be thrown out by his party if he fails. We have seen the same thing in the Conservative party previously.
Starmer and Reeves are cleary failing economically, as it always seemed likely that they would. His time is limited.
Trump is also safe, in principle, for four years. Yet he is also failing very quickly.
Neoliberal economics, and worse, is simply not delivering. Perhaps there will be a change of leadership in both the UK and the US. I hope so.
The problem is that all the members of the cabinet are both out of their depth and have been captured or believe in free market ideas promoted by the Tufton street lobbyists and their allies. I think they are worse than Boris Johnson and that was pretty bad.
So, we (including the Labour party if it survives) need a new PM who has the vision to ditch most of the Cabinet and appoint instead people who know what they are doing. They may need advice, but not from those currently advising the PM. Obviously.
Mr Pipe “we …. need a new PM who has the vision” …………….
perhaps we need a PM that can see things the way they are – rather than through a neoliberal lens?
perhaps we need a PM that can think for him/herself not be told by others (McSweeney) how and what to think
perhaps we need a PM that has not been captured by a foreign power (israel)
perhaps we need a PM that governs for the many & their needs, not banksters, oligarchs = the few
perhaps …….
You know I agree
@ Robert
I couldn’t agree more, Robert, and have publicly (including on this blog, I think) characterised Starmer’s Cabinet (after his most recent actions, such as trying to get the disabled to plug a Government finance black hole, while promising Ukraine £billions for the next 100 years!!!) as a bunch of Keystone Kops 4th-raters
They are Keystone Kops for their lack of purposeful direction, and 4th-raters for their lack of vision, intelligence, straightforwatd political nous and overarching and formative ideology.
A formative ideology is essential for a truly transformative Government, such as Attlee’s or Thatcher’s. The ideology shapes the objectives, but they are then tested against the political and other facts – this is where straightforward political nous is required – to produce coherent (one hopes!) policy.
I fear McSweeney is the root cause of the problem, as he’s allowed his ideology, centered round destroying the Left and advancing the Right, to swamp the application of political nous.
As a result, Starmer’s Faux-Labour/Likud-Labour Party has ended up adopting ruinous policies such as the withdrawal of the Winter Fuel Allowance (a financial pinprick and entirely unnecessary) and the latest attack on Welfare for the disabled, while sucking up to Blackstone, supporting Special Enterprise Zones, and having Streeting doing a Musk on NHS staff, almost certainly in readiness for privatisation, as are the closeness to Blackstone and the whole SEZ scandal.
The sooner Starmer’s whole Cabinet , and frame of thought, is replaced, the better. Alas, it’s not going to happen until the next GE, and even more alas, could be replaced by an even worse Farage circus!!
It’s pretty much impossible to ditch the Labour Party leader – they don’t want MPs to follow the example of Margaret Beckett, lending their votes to facilitate another “token leftwinger” running off with 60% of the vote and the likes of Leicester Liz failing to get as much as 5%.
If those in the shadows thought a different leader was required – it would be Wes, who seems to be well liked by the right-wing media.
Fascinating,
And with the Runcorn by-election polling reflecting a swing of 22% swing from Labour to Reform, with 31% of those who who voted Labour in the enteral election saying they now strongly disapprove of the party’s performance in office, the Runcorn by-election could be as significant indicator of the dissatisfaction with welfare cuts that is being felt by members of the cabinet.
https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2025/03/runcorn-by-election-reform-uk-in-pole-position/
Might there be a continuing incidence of the Dunning-Kruger effect affecting our governmental leadership?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/dunning-kruger-effect?msockid=38490f6d434d687401871a77426a69bc
Okay, today I will write (again) to my female Junior Minister MP in a protected spending department about to absorb what 10,000 soon to be sacked NHS England employees do, as it and our health services benefit from the health and management expertise of her ambitious boss Mr Streeting. I will tell her how disgusted, insulted (as an “economically inactive” irrelevance to Labour) and ashamed I am about the Labour government. But I’d hate to think I had in the slightest, done anything to precipitate Streeting or Cooper into number 10 because I’m not sure much would change except the “optics”, and even then, only for a while. But as my letter may never be read by her, perhaps I can rest easy.
But at least Starmer would get his come-uppance. Even if his relacement was owned by the same lobbyists and donors.
As for the upcoming Runcorn by-election, my preferred result would be a Labour win but with an absolutely miniscule margin, of under a 1,000.
The whole cabinet needs to have an away weekend at Chequers for seminars to ask themselves the Cromwell question of whether they ‘may be mistaken’ in their understanding of how the economy works.
They would be addressed by Richard Murphy, Mazzucato, Skelton, Sikka etc etc – even Will Hutton ….. to get themselves to understand Keynes assertion ‘anything we can actually do we can afford’.
If they don’t have such a fundamental rethink – no end of coups will work
Even if they do that – they also need political purpose – and Labour’s dominant faction have all the wrong purpose. Cant see a coherent uprising by back benchers….they look pretty doomed.
@Andrew Broadbent
Agreed. As an addendum/footnote to my earlier post on this matter, getting rid of Starmer and Reeves is an essential, but incomplete, answer to the current mess.
The whole government needs either to undertake the crash re-education course in political and economic realities that you are suggesting (with fruitful effect on its behaviour) or to be replaced by one that DOES understand those realities, and acts accordingly, foreswearing all the SEZ/Blackstone/privatisation/corporatocracy/anti-Welfate nonsense that has taken hold of this administration.
After all, polls have shown how there is majority support for public ownership of utilities, and Richard has posted here the fact that a Social Democrat approach is supported by, and voted for by, a majority of the electorate.
Starmer’s clique are thus acting against the majority sentiment, which may lead to the sort of reaction that led to the German people voting Nazi because they felt the then current politicians didn’t have the answers and weren’t giving them what they wanted, and the Social Democrat and Socialist were unable to work together to offer that coherent answer and programme.
Richard’s 53%+ are waiting. So are Reform and the Faragists.
Labour is apparently the party of working people.
About half of the population is under 18 or over 65, and by and large these groups are not “working”.
And then a significant number of people aged 18 to 65 are not “working” for one reason or another.
So does Labour really aspire to represent just a fraction the people aged 18 to 65?
And by the way about half of the nation’s income is earned by the top third, and about half of he wealth is owned by the top 10%.
If people continue to see their living standards erode, and their public services continue to decline, and Labour stand back and let that happen, then the Labour Party will be out. And they will deserve it.
Agreed
I get the point but the UK actually has the tenth highest employment rate in the world and a record number of people in work.
Two days ago I received an email with the link to a “lobbying tool”, promoted by Momentum, “to write to your Labour MP urging them to vote against any cuts to welfare if they go to a vote – and to oppose through any other channels …”: https://forms.peoplesmomentum.com/welfare-cuts/
Having registered and succesfully voted in the 2024 UK election as a long-standing non-resident UK citizen, I decided it was worth a try and supplied the requested UK postcode as that of my last UK address. Unsurprisingly, the northern Constituency in question, a very safe Labour seat, was easily won by Labour, but with a somewhat reduced majority over the Greens whose share of the vote increased significantly.
In response I received an email from the MP’s ‘Constituency Assistant’ asking me to confirm my full address and postcode to verify whether I lived in the Consistency in order for the MP to respond to my concerns. I replied with my last UK address (in the said Constituency), pointing out that I no longer live in the UK but was registered as such at that address in 2024 and had voted there in the last election.
I took the opportunity to point out that the disturbing rightward drift of the current Labour party had lead me – a former Labour voter – to vote Green (in which it appears I was not alone). I further ventured to suggest that, without a significant change (including in Rachel Reeves’ invented and totally unnecessary fiscal ‘rules’), the Constituency may no longer be a regarded as safe Labour seat at the next election.
I now await any response from the MP.
Good luck
They will find any excuse not to reply
Just noticed that when challenged by their backbench (our representatives) the LINO leadership are now reconsidering their benefit cut choice.
So:
– is this a matter of their personal self preservation?
– recognition they have been wrong (morally or even just for cohesion)?
i.e. are they confirmed to be essentially tories, defending their constituency perks (not their constituents), or, not competent to justify their role?
Richard:
Yes, it is entirely possible that there may well be a coup launched against Starmer and Reeves in coming months, especially if there are poor results for Labour in the local elections.
/
But to what result ? To have another pro- establishment type such as Wes Streeting or Angela Rayner take the reins.
As I argue ( in the second part of Friday’s THE LEFT LANE: https://theleftlane2024.substack.com/p/as-trump-sets-out-to-double-the-size / As Trump sets out to double the size of his own country… ), “It is past time for serious left-wing MPs who call themselves socialists to blow the whistle on Labour, to directly and publicly challenge the neoliberal stance of those running Labour, and call for a socialist alternative.
One of the main reasons – mind you, not the only one – that Labour has become more and more right wing is because such an alternative does not exist.
And there is no viable strategy for even a centrist social democratic leadership to take charge of Labour until well into the 2030’s . That is the last thing the overwhelming majority of its +400 MPs want.”
Alan Story
THE LEFT LANE
But there are MPs who do want that
I have spoken to them
What’s your view of Angela Rayner?
As weak as the rest of them.
I hoped for a spine, but she has not got one.
This is the most cheerful post I’ve read in weeks – nay, months! Spring must truly be on its way.
If the baleful Cooper is unhappy, it must be serious, though I wouldn’t want her in place of Reeves. Perhaps John Crace’s dog, Herbie, can be our source on the inside lane ……