Labour's Fear of Fighting: The Budget That Will Betray the Public
The British government, under Keir Starmer's leadership, has become notorious for its inability to argue and take sides. This cowardly approach to politics has left the country with a fiscal strategy that is more likely to be criticized than debated.
In a recent parliamentary office, I sat down with one of Labour's star performers who had yet to take their place at the top. They spoke candidly about the staff – or rather, the non-dom community – and how they would all vote for Boris Johnson if given the chance. One exclaimed, "He's a laugh, innee?" The atmosphere was uncomfortable, with workers backing an Etonian, and the interviewer struggled to ask tough questions.
This lack of argument is not only damaging but also fatal. In less than a month, the government will unveil a budget that promises £20-30bn in tax rises and spending cuts. This comes just a year after the last painful budget, which broke its promise not to hike any of the big three money-raisers. The Chancellor should be out making arguments, but instead, there is only silence.
The right-wing press will fill this vacuum with criticism of Labour's government as "lying" and failing to address fiscal crises. But what about providing a clear vision for the public? This government is more concerned with pleasing its own party than engaging with the public. The strategy so far involves complaining about Brexit's role in weakening the economy, but where are the solutions?
The professionalization of politics has led to a frontbench that has been insulated from public argument. Labour's chronic diffidence regarding its lack of popularity with the public is evident. This lack of courage is reflected in Reeves' reluctance to make difficult decisions and her insistence on fiscal rules imposed by her predecessor.
In essence, politics is a fight – for your side and your beliefs. But this government has failed to take sides or argue with conviction. Instead, it's more concerned with appearing non-partisan and avoiding confrontation. This approach will not work, as the public demands clarity and firmness from its leaders.
The British government, under Keir Starmer's leadership, has become notorious for its inability to argue and take sides. This cowardly approach to politics has left the country with a fiscal strategy that is more likely to be criticized than debated.
In a recent parliamentary office, I sat down with one of Labour's star performers who had yet to take their place at the top. They spoke candidly about the staff – or rather, the non-dom community – and how they would all vote for Boris Johnson if given the chance. One exclaimed, "He's a laugh, innee?" The atmosphere was uncomfortable, with workers backing an Etonian, and the interviewer struggled to ask tough questions.
This lack of argument is not only damaging but also fatal. In less than a month, the government will unveil a budget that promises £20-30bn in tax rises and spending cuts. This comes just a year after the last painful budget, which broke its promise not to hike any of the big three money-raisers. The Chancellor should be out making arguments, but instead, there is only silence.
The right-wing press will fill this vacuum with criticism of Labour's government as "lying" and failing to address fiscal crises. But what about providing a clear vision for the public? This government is more concerned with pleasing its own party than engaging with the public. The strategy so far involves complaining about Brexit's role in weakening the economy, but where are the solutions?
The professionalization of politics has led to a frontbench that has been insulated from public argument. Labour's chronic diffidence regarding its lack of popularity with the public is evident. This lack of courage is reflected in Reeves' reluctance to make difficult decisions and her insistence on fiscal rules imposed by her predecessor.
In essence, politics is a fight – for your side and your beliefs. But this government has failed to take sides or argue with conviction. Instead, it's more concerned with appearing non-partisan and avoiding confrontation. This approach will not work, as the public demands clarity and firmness from its leaders.