By John McTernan
The pictures of a distraught Rachel Reeves on the government benches during Prime Ministers Questions will cruelly and unfairly (for the Chancellor had had a personal shock before entering the chamber) come to symbolise the disarray of Keir Starmer鈥檚 government less than a year into office.
Despite a landslide majority, and a previously iron parliamentary discipline inherited from last year鈥檚 election campaign, Keir Starmer has had to u-turn twice within a week to stave off backbench revolt against his flagship welfare reform legislation. And the truth is that this humiliation has been better than the alternative which would have been putting the unamended legislation to the vote in the House of Commons to see it defeated 鈥 as it inevitably would have.
A retreat allows Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves to live to fight another day. A defeat would have shattered their political authority jointly and severally 鈥 for make no mistake this government鈥檚 economic management is a combined political endeavour, seen as that by voters and money markets alike. For all the feverish talk in parliamentary lobbies, Rachel Reeves really is 鈥済oing nowhere鈥 as No 10 has said.
Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves are bound together 鈥 as prime ministers and chancellors inevitably are. As are the entirety of the current cabinet because in this is a case where the discipline of collective responsibility really bites. Just as in 鈥淢urder on the Orient Express鈥 they all had a hand in this. They all agreed to plans to cut disability benefits by some 拢5bn a year, and simple arithmetic tells you that amounts to a cut of at least 拢1000 a year for a million people or, as in this case 拢4500 a year for nearly a million people with disabilities. Big numbers require big cuts which always means big pain.
So, if Cabinet members are seeking advantage and briefing against the Chancellor they should remember: 鈥淔irst they came for the Winter Fuel Payment, and I did not speak out for I was not a pensioner. Then they came for Personal Independence Payments and I did not speak out鈥︹.
We are nearly a year into the rigors of government, so all members of Labour鈥檚 leadership need to shape up or the voters will ship them out. What are the lessons for Labour?
The obvious one is that like so many political problems the issue is the policy not the communications. If you can鈥檛 explain why you are doing something then just don鈥檛 do it. There was not a single argument mounted for cutting Personal Independence Payments (PIP) despite ministers repeating the mantra that there was a moral case for the cuts.
So, what was the underlying case for change? Logically, it can鈥檛 have been to do with work incentives as it鈥檚 an in-work benefit. And it鈥檚 not driven by public opinion. Luke Tryl at More in Common says people were disgusted when they heard the details of the cuts and who suffers. These cuts aren鈥檛 even popular with the 鈥渉ero鈥 voters of the Red Wall 鈥 not least because there are a higher proportion of PIP concentrated in Red Wall areas. According to those who campaigned in Doncaster in May it nearly cost them the mayoralty 鈥 only Labour鈥檚 world class field operations saved the day. Like so many other errors in politics, this was a demonstration of the folly of defending the indefensible 鈥 and doing that for far too long.
The less obvious point is that it鈥檚 time for both Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves to embrace the 鈥渟oft left鈥 part of the government鈥檚 agenda and to become associated with it. Because that鈥檚 the truly popular part of what Labour is doing 鈥 but it鈥檚 buried as though Labour are ashamed. When focus groups are told that the National Living Wage is now two-thirds of median earnings they are surprised but pleased. The same goes for the extension of workers鈥 rights and renters鈥 rights. The bitter irony is that it鈥檚 only the most unpopular things that the Labour government are doing which get any coverage in the media. The truly popular things Labour is doing are being done by stealth.
If I were advising Keir and Rachel on a reset, I鈥檇 say 鈥淛ust go for it! Use the power of government to intervene for the public good. Call up Thames Water and tell them you accept that they can鈥檛 carry on doing business under the current regulatory machine. And that鈥檚 why you鈥檙e nationalising them. You鈥檒l get a bargain basement asset that can generate you a return. And you鈥檒l show the voters that you get it 鈥 what counts is what鈥檚 most social democratic!鈥
[See more: Is Keir Starmer turning into Harold Wilson?]