Do you remember the days when Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves were inseparable? It is a little over a year ago that they claimed that the relationship between the two of them would never be like that between most prime ministers and their chancellors. A little over a year is, however, a very long time in politics. And both of these two have miserably failed in office. That said, one has the greater power to blame the other, and Keir Starmer exercised that power yesterday.
Not only did he appoint a new, profoundly neoliberal policy adviser over the weekend, but he has now done a minor cabinet reshuffle, which means that Darren Jones has been taken out of the Treasury and into Number 10. I suspect that Starmer thinks this will enhance his economic power and undermine Reeves, whilst leaving her with the ineffective James Murray as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and with another ex-Resolution Foundation policy wonk in her team, supporting the role of Torsten Bell, who is now very clearly snapping at her heels.
What does all this look like?
Firstly, the impression is very clear that Starmer is blaming Reeves for everything that has gone wrong in his first year in Downing Street. There are, admittedly, good reasons to blame Reeves: her policy choices have been dire, her communication skills invisible, and her politics appalling. But she is not responsible for Starmer's own decision to pursue ultra-neoliberalism when he could have done something very different, and once promised to do so. For that, he has to accept the blame. The fact that he is reinforcing his own team, built in that mould, shows that he has no awareness of the real crisis that he faces. What is certain is that he is not building policy alternatives in the face of it.
What is the consequence? We are watching a government fail sooner than almost any has in recent political history. Remember that the last single-term government that we had from a political party in the UK was that of Ted Heath in 1970. There has been no other government of that type since World War II. Even then, Heath only went down marginally in the first general election of 1974. Starmer would now be obliterated. What that makes clear is just how unprecedented the current political crisis in the Labour Party really is.
In the face of fascism, Labour are sinking without a trace.
In the endgame of neoliberal capitalism, they are bereft of ideas or alternatives, and so their failure continues.
As a government, they were clueless as to what they might do before they came into office, and they have been ever since.
As the creators of a pathway to fascism, they know no equal.
As I've already noted this morning, it is now up to us, in whatever capacity we have, to oppose where they will not. That is our only hope, since Labour appears to be solely dedicated to shuffling deckchairs as the country sinks.
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!
Labour promised “change”. Change is exactly what has failed to appear. The fundamental “fiscal rule” driven financial straitjacket that Labour inherited from the Conservatives, remains tightly fastened in place. The fiscal rules are designed to guarantee that “change” cannot happen. Change will never happen with the fiscal rules in place. Ever.
At the same time as the fiscal rules guarantee “change” will never happen; this does not stop a bunch of Labour leaders who know nothing about managing a major enterprise competently, spending £Bns on wasteful, ineffective policies that will not work. Let me take just one example. Labour want (and need 1.5m homes to be built, in this Parliament). What do we find. It will never happen, because Labour are too incompetent to deliver it. A report today in Sky News (backed by an FOI), points out this executive Government disaster: “The safety inspection regime created in the wake of the Grenfell tragedy, which claimed 72 lives, is ‘not fit for purpose’, according to those who depend on its work…… As of 1 August, there is ‘no decision’ on eight applications covering 1,210 completed new residential units. For sites yet to be built, there are 156 applications with no decision, covering 34,965 new residential units….. After complaints, the regulator has already faced one overhaul, and will shortly move from part of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to become an arm’s length body which is part of Angela Rayner’s Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. But developers say they are still struggling to get answers from the body…… New buildings ought to be signed off within a 12-week period, but Sky News found the percentage of applications determined inside that window is falling – from 47% at the end of September last year, to 32% by the end of March” (Sky News, ‘Hundreds of empty flats that developers say sum up UK’s housing crisis’).
Labour are so lost in neoliberal dogma, they cannot bring themselves to provide the resources to provide an efficient, safe and effective regulatory regime. I have said it so often before; British regulators are designed be all Governments to fail. They are merely put in place, on the cheap – to prove that regulation does not work; and provide the Red Tops with an easy argument that the real problem is “Red Tape”. It will not “change”.
QED.
Very much to agree with.
Mr Warren I agree with much of what you said. Apologies for building on it.
I am reading “Failed State” by Sam Freedman. In terms of the political economy and the relationship gov’ & money the man is a quasi-imbecile. The book is littered with references to “markets”. However, it makes some very pertinent points about the destruction of local gov’ and responsibility for trivia shifting to ministers: e.g. education: a minister deciding if a small patch of land should be sold to finance a sports hall (page 60) wtf?. Did you know the gov’ has a rule preventing councils putting up road signs warning of hedgehog crossing a road (page 61). Local councils cannot set-up their own nurseries, on & on it goes. You noted: “The safety inspection regime created in the wake of the Grenfell tragedy etc”, with the right resources local gov’ working to nationally agreed standards could & should deliver that. But this would go against every gov since the ghastly Thatcher – who was responsible for massive centralisation. Arguably, local gov should be responsible for housing – with central gov providing strategic oversight (argued for by Freedman). Will never happen. In the article, RM mentions fascism. Lets try this:
Democracy if it works at all in a nation state has to be multi-level, from local through to national. As already noted, this has been destoryed (sic). Thus not only was UK industry destoried (sic) by Thatcher’s Tories, peoples’ political power at a local level was destroyed. At a visceral level, UK serfs & peasants know this – which is why they vote Deform/Fart-rage, it is not just a reaction to 40 years of Westminster pissing in their faces, it is a reaction to the loss of all political power apart from the political charade of a vote every 5 years or so for imbecilic politicos that deliver ABSOLUTELY nothing. Centralisation = gov’ twiddling with details, not the big picture, UK citizens with ZERO agency = facism = fart-rage.
Might “deck chair shuffling” be the consequence of the following factors to which all the major parties and the main stream media, not least the B. B. C., have, presumably consciously, contributed:
1) Sham/unrepresentative democratic input/voting practices
2) Loutish lack of real discussion in democratic practices, notably the House of Commons
3) Lack of real democratic output which includes semi-starving children, under-employed medical people in conjunction with cruelly long waiting times for patients
4) Ideological/willful blindness to socio-economic realities
5) Putting party loyalty/job security ahead of community service duty
6) The excising of differing views, and those uttering them, within political parties
7) A state education set up which teaches and enforces unquestioning conforming obedience
8) Pseudo analytical conversations between the M. S M. and politicians which [deliberately?] avoid in depth analysis and/or critical, un-chummy interrogation
9) A shallow, drama seeking and presenting M. S. M.
What might other factors be?
You could finesse the list, most particularly referring to the existence of a single overarching common economic philosophy between all our major political parties, but your starting point is good.
This comment is only indirectly related to this discussion on the present ‘incompetence’ of the Labour government but may help to explain why we have Starmer and Reeves in the first place.
It’s an extraordinary comment/admission by George Osborne that we are indeed only a shadow democracy . He suggests that the ‘establishment’ would never accept/ allow someone like Corbyn to be PM. He references that the PM has to have the highest ‘security clearance’, and refers to Chris Mullins ‘A Very British Coup’
https://x.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1962457932802523234
Its sort of blindingly obvious that anyone who expressed doubts about nuclear weapons and membership of NATO could not be PM. ‘The establishment’ must have had the fright of their lives when Corbyn nearly beat Theresa May , and that probably was when the ‘deep state’ (MI5, armed forces, privy council etc etc?) started to get themselves organised to infiltrate Labour … and the rest is history.
I think that there is an appropriate response here, which is a f*ck the establishment.
That wont work – you are dealing with the military, the secret services, and CIA etc etc
I believe that anything can be overcome if we wish. You might call me naive. I don’t think so. I believe in people.
Tonight at 6.30 there is a webinar with Jeremy Corbyn and Caroline Lucas called From Hiroshima to Today.
I still have faith in them.
Over a million joined up to Your Party now.
To be precise, no one has joined Your Party now. I have signed up for emails, but I have done the same with the Institute of Economic Affairs. I have not joined either, and I suspect a great many people are in the same situation. A little objectivity helps.
https://www.yourparty.uk/
Okay. Signed up to rather than joined up to. Sorry.
Strangely enough, I expected you to mention Caroline Lucas when I wrote the original post.
Maybe I notice things to do with Hiroshima more than most, with my birthday being the same as Hitler’s, my husband’s being the same day as Mussolini’s, and my mother’s being the same day they dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. Apologise for being subjective.
Unfortunately Labour is proving even worse than I imagined. I do what I can: I’ve written to my MP but now my emails are blocked, I think, certainly ignored. I’ve never had an acknowledgement from my MP.
In my opinion only Ty Keynes (Relearning Economics) with his national ,dynamic chaos bases system model, has any real understanding how the economic system we live in works.
I suggest you interview him and get him to run his model.
Imo his approach needs to be combined in a similar manner to that methodology used for our weather forecast. Both systems are similar.
We have spoken.
Steve Keen works with him. The difficulty with his model is in explaining it in a way that most people could even have a hope of understanding, and that makes it of Ltd YouTube appeal in my opinion.
https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2025/09/01/rachel-reeves-thames-water/
If only Reeves would change her mind on this, it could give her more time at the top. Not that I want her to have more time……
Her position on this is absurd.
I’d suggest Reeves position is deeply corrupt – given the appointment of a treasury adviser with a vested interest in Turds-R-Us-Water (see end of article)
She gets away with this because 99% of MPs are utterly useless (& as other posters note – no longer reply to the e-mails of constituents)
@Mike Parr,
Yes the whole Government is absurd on the Water industry, but I must be one of the lucky ones as my MP has responded to several of my emails. He was on the subcommittee looking at all the solutions to the Water Industry (except for the only real solution of nationalising!), and I emailed him precisely about that. He sent me quite a lengthy response, although agreed to disagree with me and felt that keeping Water in private hands was the best way forward.
Another email I sent him was about whether the Treasury knows about the BoE briefing paper explaining how banks create money as loans, and that the BoE creates the money the Government spends and therefore the money for growth has to come from increased Government spending, and he has responded saying he will table a Parliamentary Question to HM Treasury asking for clarification on the Government’s position regarding the source of Sterling creation for sustained economic expansion.
Thanks. It’s good to know that some of these actions are having some impact.
Richard Kirby, does your MP’s response about water look anything like this?
“As you may know, the Government is receiving legal advice about a Special Administration Regime (SAR) for Thames Water. I know the Government stands ready to intervene to ensure the continued provision of vital public services in this way if required. A SAR is not a form of renationalisation. It is for the special administrator to manage the affairs of the company, so the company continues to carry out its statutory duties pending rescue through debt restructuring or transfer via sale to new owners.
I understand this may be disappointing news, but the Government has no plans to nationalise Thames Water or any other water company. It would cost billions of pounds and take years to unpick the current ownership model, slowing down current reforms and worsening sewage pollution.
I share your concerns about water in England. Our rivers, lakes and seas are polluted with record levels of sewage and water pipes have been left to crumble. I share customers’ fury at rising bills while water companies have been allowed to profit at the expense of the British people when they should have been investing in our water system.
I am pleased the Independent Water Commission has published its final recommendations. I know the Government is preparing to consult on creating one single water regulator responsible for the entire water system. This will provide clarity and direction, helping support investment and clearing up all forms of pollution. I understand a full response to the report will be published later this year, with the Government consulting on proposed reforms and bringing forward new legislation on water reform.
I supported the landmark Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, a major step forward in reforming and fixing the broken water system.
Water company bosses can now face imprisonment for lawbreaking. Water companies will also have to install real-time monitors at every sewage outlet, and they will be held accountable against a new code of conduct.
The Government has also banned unfair bonuses for bosses at six water companies, and I support action to ringfence money for investment in water infrastructure so it cannot be diverted for bonuses or dividends.”
It does appear that the number 10 response machine is getting very good at such things. It now appears that there is a generic comment on me doing round to MP is being asked to reply to comments that I have made.
Hi JenW, no my MPs reply seems more personal – the bulk of it said:
“Where we may differ is on the question of nationalisation. I completely understand why it appeals to many people, and I share the anger about how some companies have behaved. But I don’t believe full nationalisation is the most effective or realistic way to fix the problems we face.
From my experience in the water industry, I’ve seen how deep the issues go: years of underinvestment, weak regulation, and a lack of real accountability. Changing ownership alone won’t solve those problems—and forcing a takeover could end up tying up public money and time we urgently need for real reform.
Instead, I want to see tougher rules, stronger enforcement, and a system where profit can only be made by delivering for people and the planet. That means holding water companies to account, making polluters pay, and giving communities a real say in how their water is managed.
Public trust matters and so does public impact. I’ll keep pushing for practical solutions that clean up our waterways, improve services, and put local voices at the heart of decision-making.”
Similar sentiment though.
Just a brief response to the comments on water.
Water (clean & sewage treatment) is a complex system – like gas & elec. The various companies in ALL sectors have been private for 35 years.
Objectively: privatisation HAS FAILED – in the delivery of services to the Uk public.
Because: of information asymmetry i.e the regulated (e.g. water companies) know far far more about their operations than a regulator EVER CAN.
The multiple (objective) failures by the privatised companies CANNOT be cured by a bit more regulation here or there (which is what the imbecile MPs& their equally imbecilic gov are proposing). Both are stuck in utopia-land – “just a bit more regulation lads and we will get there”. It won’t work. It can’t work & those that think it can – time to replace them – they are not fit to hold public office.
I would suggest Reeves is following long standing HMT policy on dealing with former nationalised industries.
This policy involves shirking any possible commitments, insisting on market solutions, pretending that taxpayers must be protected.
This strategy of avoidance often is seen to work but sometimes the bubble bursts, the crisis escalates and panic ensues.
Then often in the worst and sometimes the most costly of circumstances the Cabinet Office & HMT agree something must be done.
I guess for Thames Water we must wait for the crisis to erupt and the panic.
In the meantime, the political pygmies are having a pissing up the wall contest as to who has the most flags in their home. I guess, sotto voce, Angela Rayner would be near the top, with her 3 homes, including a grace and favour one that goes with her political office. Even so, Yvette Cooper boasts she has union jack bunting on her garden shed.
Never in my memory, have flags been more important as the world disintegrates around us. Of course, jacket lapel badges with Old Glory became de rigueur in the US post 9/11 and was soon aped by European midget politicians keen to display their nationalistic allegience. Soon, or course, to be joined by lapel badges with national flag twinned with Ukrainian or Israeli flags, but never twinned with the Palestine equivalent, quite possibly a criminal offence these days.
A novelty goods shop near me now sports in its display England flags at £3 each or 2 for £5. No doubt made in China or other Asian sweatshop.
To misquote Shelley:
“Look on my flags, ye midgets, and despair!”
England has been arrogant in not using flag display to show patriotism. The US has a culture of flag display probably to help with their immigrants. In England we don’t even identify the country on our stamps. Completely different cultures
A list needs to be prepared of where Starmer’s so-called “Labour government” is going wrong. This can at least be posted to Labour MP’s who hopefully sufficient number will say enough is enough of Keir Starmer! Here’s my list posted from another of Richard’s articles:-
No realisation that the government legally creates money from nothing.
No realisation the “drain” side (taxation) of that government creation forces people to get an income to pay taxes even if that taxation is only indirect like VAT.
No realisation that market capitalism rarely avails itself of all real resources because of profit uncertainty therefore will never be the sole provider of income to pay taxes.
No realisation that there’s demand leakage when government securities are issued.
No realisation that some UK companies don’t pay a Living Wage and so their profits are “socialised” by government top-up benefits either physical (social housing for example) or monetary.
Chat GPT offered this list based on my recent writing:
Starmer Government Failures (from Funding the Future)
1. Obsession with Fiscal Rules
• Reeves and Starmer tie themselves to arbitrary deficit and debt rules.
• This recreates the austerity trap, making investment in public services and climate transition impossible.
• Rules serve political signalling, not economic reality.
2. Household Analogy Economics
• The government repeats the myth that the state must “balance its books like a household.”
• This ignores that a currency-issuing government creates money before taxing or borrowing.
3. Failure on Growth and Distribution
• Starmer talks about “growing the pie” but avoids redistribution.
• Ignores that growth without redistribution entrenches inequality.
4. Silence on Wealth and Tax Avoidance
• Wealth taxation, reform of capital gains, inheritance, and tackling corporate avoidance are ducked.
• Reeves even rules out serious reforms that could raise revenue fairly.
5. Neglect of Public Services
• Refusal to restore pay in NHS, education, and public sector generally.
• Fiscal drag used to raise taxes on ordinary people while services remain underfunded.
6. Climate Retreat
• Scaling back of green investment pledges, undermining both climate targets and job creation.
• Sustainable cost accounting or similar frameworks ignored.
7. Central Bank Independence Myth
• Commitment to Bank of England “independence” keeps democratic control over monetary policy off the table.
• Fiscal and monetary tools remain wrongly separated.
8. Weakness on Housing and Rentier Power
• Refusal to tackle landlords, rent extraction, and mortgage speculation.
• Housing policy leaves inequality entrenched.
9. Alignment with Tory Narratives
• Adoption of Tory frames on debt, immigration, and welfare.
• Starmer avoids confronting media-driven myths that sustain neoliberalism.
10. Failure to Challenge Inequality of Power
• No plan to address concentrated corporate power or extreme executive pay.
• Starmer’s Labour appears captured by the interests of wealth rather than the needs of the majority.
Yep a good list. At least made me realise why they should never have been regarded as an alternative to the Tories. As usual many voters are easily hoodwinked!
On the reshuffle two points. One that has not been much noticed is the appointment of Tim Allan as executive director of government communications fresh from the board of Sex Matters the anti-trans charity. I fear that this is a disturbing indication of the government’s direction of travel on Human Rights. Second point is to ask whether Darren Jones is being safely got out of the way in case/when/if the budget flops. He will escape responsibility, have in the meantime worked closely with the PM and be in pole position to take over as Chancellor.
On the awful situation we are in it makes me feel pretty despairing. The truth as I see it is that we need this Labour Government to succeed. We need living standards raised, public services improved. I do not believe that there is a chance that a left/green alliance can win the next election from where the parties are now, The alternative to a failed Labour government therefore is Reform and that fills me with dread. There is still hope for me in some of the Labour PLP, but that is going to mean parliamentary infighting and an electorate increasingly willing to punish Labour for being a divided party. I am constantly on the look out for a credible candidate to replace Starmer, but see no one so far with the potential parliamentary backing. I have been wondering about Clive Lewis.
Thanks.
Much to muse on.
Andrew Feinstein will beat Starmer at the next election.
He has an incredible backing already.
He writes for Declassified.
https://www.declassifieduk.org/labour-must-not-award-elbit-a-2-billion-military-deal/
I have often argued that the Internet has been responsible for much of the shift towards micro-meddling from the centre. In days of yore, politicians decided general direction, and relied on a competent Civil Service to ‘make it so’.
Writing emails requires so much less effort, and getting feedback on minor issues has become far quicker, so the mechanics of meddling is much easier. Politicians have always had the arrogance to believe they knew all the answers, but the Civil Service was there, Sir Humphrey style, to moderate their excesses. Now they can too easily bypass that channel, to the serious detriment of the old checks and balances.
This should set the Zack amongst the pigeons:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/02/zack-polanski-wins-green-party-leadership-election
that is a very decisive vote (85%) and it was a higher turnout (37%) than last time (22%) too.
I rather liked this quote:
“My message to Labour is very clear: we are not here to be disappointed by you.
We are not here to be concerned by you.
We are here to replace you.”
and this one:
Asked whether he would cooperate with the new leftwing party being launched by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana, Polanski said it was too early to talk about alliances, and also a matter for the wider party. It was better, he said, to think of “intellectual coalitions”.
He said he had talked to Corbyn about an inquiry into the situation in Gaza proposed by the former Labour leader: “We don’t need to be in the same party for me to support that. We don’t even need to be ‘allies’ for me to support that. What I see is a politician who is doing strong, principled work that aligns with the things I care about and the party cares about, and I think that’s different.”
Now let’s hope they get moving on their macro-economic policies.
The Labour government is beginning to look like a sideshow, increasingly irrelevant and out of touch.
In Spinal Tap terms, let’s have the progressive populist politics volume turned up to 11, and drown out the Fascist Fa***e and the Labour racist authoritarian snarling.
I can hear the MSM sharpening their knives already.
Replying to RobertJ:
The “inquiry into the situation in Gaza” Zack mentioned is happening this Thursday and Friday. https://thegazatribunal.uk/
The bond markets certainly don’t approve of the appointments
Here’s The Guardian whipping Starmer into line:-
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/sep/02/rachel-reeves-uk-borrowing-costs-budget-bond-yields
The Guardian under Viner now no better than a tabloid! Great shame!
Andy Burnham & Steve Rotherum’s book Head North (2024) is an excellent critique of the failings of Westminster politics. Labour would do well to pay attention to the ten point manifesto:
The HEAD NORTH MANIFESTO
A Written Constitution
A Basic Law
Reform of the Voting System
Removal of the Whip
A Senate of the Nations and Regions
Full Devolution
Two Equal Paths in Education
A Grenfell Law (to address the failures raised, but not addressed in the judicial review)
A Hillsborough Law (ditto)
Net Zero to Reindustrialise the North
Well worth a read.
Good, but insufficient. There is no economic vision in that. Why do we have so many politicians who have no clue on that core issue?