Starmer’s new Brexit line: it’s a disaster

About bloody time. I think Starmer’s a straw in the wind, but at least he’s on the right track now. Will he actually do anything about it though? I think he’s still afraid of the voters who were misled and stupid enough to support Brexit.

.

Starmer’s new Brexit line: it’s a disaster - and Farage is to blame

Downing Street insiders say Labour’s frontbench have been primed to blame the current economic woes on Brexit and Reform UK

Labour Keir Starmer claims his party is in a fight for the soul of the country: Photograph: House of Commons/PA Wire

Labour Keir Starmer claims his party is in a fight for the soul of the country: Photograph: House of Commons/PA Wire

How many positions can a politician have on a single issue? For Keir Starmer the answer is: many.

The UK Labour leader has gone from vigorously opposing Brexit (position number one) to being neutral on the issue and not wanting to talk about it (position number two).

Then in the lead-up to the 2024 general election and in a bid to win back the so-called red wall (former Labour seats that voted for Brexit), he championed the country’s EU divorce, insisting “Britain’s future is outside the EU” (position number three).

Position number four, hatched in recent weeks in response to a resurgent Nigel Farage, whose Reform UK party is riding high in the polls, is to say it has been a disaster and to blame his political opponents.

Downing Street insiders say Labour’s front bench have been primed to blame Farage and Brexit for Britain’s downturn in productivity and the resulting hole in the exchequer at the next month’s budget.

“There is no doubting that the impact of Brexit is severe and long-lasting,” chancellor Rachel Reeves told Sky News recently.

Her comments have been echoed by others in the party, after a period when the topic was almost banned from public discourse.

[ ‘Brexit has been a disaster and they don’t want to talk about it’: Labour Party face awkward questions on the campaign trail ]

“I’m glad that Brexit is a problem whose name we now dare speak,” health secretary Wes Streeting said, welcoming the shift in political messaging.

The change of tack is also being driven by recent polling data that put support for Brexit at an all-time low.

A July poll by More in Common found just 29 per cent would vote to leave while 52 per cent would vote to remain if the 2016 referendum were held again.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies said earlier this month that without new tax increases or spending cuts, UK borrowing in 2029-2030 could be about £22 billion higher than previous estimates.

According to one estimate, being outside the EU’s trading orbit costs UK business £37 billion a year as a result of a 5 per cent drag on trade with the EU

Starmer and Reeves are reportedly planning to argue that his downgrade would not have happened were it not for Brexit and former prime minister Boris Johnson’s bad divorce deal.

Labour’s new Brexit blame game is subtle if not risky. It seeks to blame Britain’s current economic lethargy on the politicians who drove Brexit – Johnson, Farage et al – while absolving the people who voted for it.

It’s not a far cry from Farage’s own position.

He continues to deflect criticism of Brexit by claiming politicians failed to implement it correctly and to exploit the opportunity it presents rather than conceding it might have been an intrinsically bad option in the first place.

According to one estimate, being outside the EU’s trading orbit costs UK business £37 billion a year as a result of a 5 per cent drag on trade with the EU. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that Britain’s long-term productivity is 4 per cent lower than it would have been if the country had stayed inside.

Low productivity means low growth, which means low tax revenue, which means more borrowing, a merry-go-round that the UK has been on since the financial crash and a problem that has been amplified, rather than caused, by Brexit.

Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey told last week’s International Monetary Fund gathering in Washington that while he takes “no position per se” on Brexit, the impact on growth will be negative “for the foreseeable future”.

He also said it served as a warning to the wider world of the damage caused by erecting trade barriers.

“Make an economy less open and it will restrict growth,” Bailey said, while noting that Brexit also showed that businesses could adapt to tougher trade conditions, but that it took time and came at the expense of growth.

While the UK government has partially remedied the drag on trade, signing a fresh co-operation agreement with the bloc earlier this year, the measures put in place don’t offset the totality of the challenge of being outside the EU.

As a counterpoint, Brexit has been a boon for Brussels in public relations terms. Euroscepticism had mushroomed in the wake of the EU’s botched handling of the financial crisis and amid a surge in migration. Brexit triggered, as one pundit put it, a further “secessionist contagion”.

But years of wrangling, political turmoil, trade barriers and passport controls, and a UK economic outlook that is on a par with warmongering Russia’s, has all but killed off the Frexit, Italeave and Nexit movements in other countries.

Brussels and London now have perhaps bigger fish to fry in terms of the surge of populist politics in their respective jurisdictions and the security threat from Russia, which should put any lingering bad blood over Brexit into some sort of perspective.

UK politics is becoming increasingly polarised, and fudging the Brexit issue – as Starmer has done – is becoming less tenable.

He used the recent Labour conference in Liverpool to claim that his party was in “a fight for the soul of the country” against Reform UK, hitting back against the “lies and division” of the right-wing party’s populism.

It seems he now intends to enlist Brexit in that fight.

4 Likes

I hate to say it, because it echoes something Johnson said, but Starmer doesn’t seem to have any principles or beliefs. He changes his mind constantly, and seems to make his decisions based on expediency.

2 Likes

I give up :slight_smile:

If politicians do not change their views they re castigated for inflexibilty (sometimes with good cause, hello Mr Corbyn).

If they do adapt (belatedly) to changing circumstances they are castigated for being too fickle.

6 Likes

1, I don’t agree with the Brexit plan and I’ll argue against it.

  1. I don’t agree with it but it’s happened and I need to live with it
  2. Reality comes to the fore as a politician and need to make the “best” of it
  3. Reality starts to come to the fore with the country, that it’s shit and there’s an appetite for a different approach.

You might not like it but that’s politics. It’s all very well saying they should lead the populous rather than follow but that’s quite difficult when the populous has ran in the other direction

5 Likes

It’s not difficult, but it may be uncomfortable. It’s what politicians should do. It’s what populists like Farage, Trump and Le Pen do. It’s what the Left used to do, when they could unite round core socialist principles. Why don’t they do it any more?

“All” you need are
(a) principles and
(b) the ability to explain them, and to persuade others they are worth fighting for.

Starmer ought to be good at (b), because of his profession; the obvious inference is that he doesn’t have any principles to explain.

1 Like

I’m not so sure. Trying to please all of the people all of the time doesn’t work either.

At least having SOME guiding principals and convictions has to be prerequisite for being a politician.

1 Like

Two-tier Kier being very quiet about Comrade Corbyn’s neutrality and almost invisibility on Brexit back when he was party leader.

If anyone’s to blame for Brexit, it’s Cameron. Firstly for allowing the Referendum and secondly for mincing away in a huff when it didn’t go his way and leaving the Z-list Tory grifters to make it happen without a grownup left to supervise.

2 Likes

Why are Starmer and the Labour Party still worried about upsetting Brexit voters.Don,t they realize that nobody in the UK has been the least bit interested in anything that they are doing or have done since they tampered with the winter fuel allowance shortly after they were elected.They may as well just get the ball rolling and rejoin the EU,if they upset a few people,who cares.

1 Like

That was handled very badly. Undoubtedly it needs to be reformed and means tested(?) and probably best to roll it up into the pension payments for the people concerned.

In UK pensioners are a very powerful lobby as they actually vote - pensioners seems to be given payments that significantly worse off other people don’t get - the Triple Lock is a fine example of this - pensions should be locked to inflation only once having been set at an appropriate level - there is absolutely no need to lock them to earnings or a minimum percentage - good luck and political party that wants to tackle this.

Clearly the answer is to actually vote and thereafter your MPs might be as interested in satisfying your concerns - just vote, perhaps compulsory voting as in Australia could sort this.

3 Likes

Correct, and 3rdly for denying the most important vote in their lifetimes to British citizens with a foreign postcode address.

4 Likes

I’m sure that’s true for a portion of the electorate but I’d hesitate to say no one. There are much bigger issues in the UK than means-testing a benefit, though it’s unfortunate that their clumsy handling made it into a big issue.

2 Likes

That’s exactly it.

And, since then, they’ve continued in the same way. Digital ID and the grooming gangs enquiry are two recent examples.

I’m struggling to think of something they’ve handled well. If there is anything, I bet Starmer was kept well away from it.

1 Like

Interesting article by Toby Helm, previous political editor at the Observer

It’s behind a paywall but here’s the full text:

550x186.79245283018867

‘For every Labour voter who has gone to Reform, at least two have gone to parties more pro-EU than Labour… If the idea behind the omerta was to stop people turning to Farage, it has failed totally.’ - Toby Helm

At last! Finally!

For years, the vast majority of Labour MPs and front-benchers have adopted pained looks when asked about their party’s refusal to talk about Brexit. “I know, I know. I wish I could but we are not allowed to go there,” has been the agonised message behind their silence. Desperation caused by the rise of Reform has now forced a rethink. The shackles are off, the omerta is at least partially lifted. Ahead of Rachel Reeves’s budget on November 26 the B word is back and the economic disaster of leaving the EU seems up for discussion.

550x366.85

Flag of the UK is removed from the European Council, Jan 2021 / Shutterstock

Budgets are always political events, as well as fiscal ones. And this will be more political than most. Reform is miles ahead in the polls. Farage needs puncturing very soon to prevent Reform putting down roots that will cause lasting structural damage to Labour, threaten to dump them of office after one term, and will likely kill off the Tories for the foreseeable future.

For Rachel Reeves, the November Budget is a career defining moment. In her first year in office, she failed to give herself anything like enough fiscal headroom to cope with ill winds. It was a terrible error. The £10bn leeway initially built into her calculations, has proved nothing like enough. Higher than hoped-for borrowing costs, sluggish growth, stubborn inflation, and the cost of U-turns on welfare and other policy shifts have left her balance sheet in tatters. Somehow she needs to find up to £30bn more from tax rises and spending cuts to keep within her fiscal rules and give some spare room for manoeuvre down the line.

While some of this mess is of this government’s own making, the result of its own misreadings, Reeves desperately needs to highlight the other, more culpable actors, to share the blame. Reeves and her team have signaled she will cite Brexit in considerable measure for this country’s current economic woes on Budget day and name its champion Nigel Farage as responsible. That is a mighty big change.

Labour’s strategy, of not talking about Brexit as a significant factor in this country’s economic difficulties, was not completely lacking in political logic before they entered office. As Professor Robert Ford of Manchester University, who knows more about Brexit psephology than anyone, said, “They needed to do well in a lot of seats that were pretty Brexity, so you can see there was an argument for not stirring it up, for letting sleeping dogs lie.” The unintended result was that Labour’s vote suffered terribly in many Remain areas.

Since the election, the policy of pretending Brexit never happened and even suggesting (as Downing Street occasionally has) that it has been quite a good thing, has become increasingly mad. Labour has plummeted in public esteem. It has not only failed, but inflicted huge damage. Ford says that for every one Labour voter who has gone to Reform, at least two have gone to parties more pro EU than Labour, the Greens, the LibDems, the SNP, Plaid Cymru. If the idea behind the omerta was to stop people turning to Farage, it has failed totally.

By the day, the polls now show more people view Brexit as a terrible self-inflicted wound. New polling by YouGov commissioned by Best for Britain shows big majorities think it has damaged the economy. Crucially, the segments of voters vital to Labour’s electoral success want the issue addressed by getting closer to the EU again.

Ford also points to simple demographics and the fact many older Brexit voters have now departed, and new younger ones who hate Brexit are coming on stream. “The new young voters break three or four to one in favour of Remain,” Ford says. He can hardly stop when reeling off reasons why Labour is now right to start targeting Brexit and Farage as having done dreadful damage. “Brexit is not working, Leave voters are noticing it, Leave voters have been converting to Remain. It is not like it is a tattoo branded on your arm, you can change your mind,” he says.

And they are. Best for Britain’s polling shows that even among Tory voters, Brexit is overwhelmingly perceived as a failure. Among people planning to vote Reform, it is a pretty even three-way split between ‘Brexit was a failure’, ‘Brexit was a success’ and ‘don’t know’. Rather than shying away from it, by using Brexit as a political tool, Labour has a way to directly discredit the man himself.

For many voters Farage and his party are probably a passing fancy, a way to kick the system. It is surely no bad approach to remind them that he was the politician who, arguably more than any, contributed to the sky rocketing cost of the weekly shop, and the estimated 4% hit to the UK economy (the official view of the OBR).

Right now, the UK and EU are on course for what all sides believe will be a fairly limited review of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement next year. But as Ford also points out, the logic of the blame Brexit strategy leads only one way. “If you say Brexit has been terrible for us, then people will begin to say ‘well why don’t you go and renegotiate it all then?’“ That really would be the mother of all U-turns.

Toby Helm is the former Political Editor of the Observer

1 Like

Perhaps you are unaware of the reasoning behind the Triple Lock. It was designed to bring pensioners’ incomes up to a decent level over a period of time, after they had fallen behind in real terms under the previous methods of calculating them.

However, the Triple Lock scheme coincided with three periods of poor UK economic growth (the recession, Brexit, and COVID), hence the worries about its “unaffordability” now.

In 1979, the basic state pension was worth 26% of average (mean) full-time weekly earnings.

In 1980, Margaret Thatcher’s government took away the link between the state pension and average earnings, and instead linked it to retail prices. This resulted in pensioners becoming worse off in real terms compared to people in work in the following years. It fell to less than 16% of earnings in 2008.

Currently it is worth almost 25% of average full-time earnings, i.e. back to the status quo of 1979.

So pensioners have not been given some sort of golden handout - rather the problem is the poor performance of the UK economy in recent years, which has curtailed average earnings and thereby the tax revenues needed to fund state pension payments.

Source: Institute For Fiscal Studies

6 Likes

Hence why i commented it should be set to an appropriate level then inflation thereafter.

All you very clever people are actually missing the point.

It is not whether ‘brexit’ was good-bad-disaster - I know there are very strong feelings over a democratic vote by the british people.

But that’s not the point.

What’s at the back of it is that this bunch of —- have splurged money right, left and centre - made a so-called black-hole much, much worse - and now they are coming for everyone who has worked hard, saved, invested, paid a mortgage, bought shares, etc etc

-in other words - people like YOU - those who did the decent, responsible thing..

This load of —- —– have made a bad situation 10 times worse - by their own actions - and the markets don’t trust this government - borrowing costs gone up - interest rates staying high, unemployment increasing, jobs being lost - you all know what’s happening in the UK.

This load of —- —- will blame anyone, anything, any event - rather than admit the truth. They are destroying the UK economy - you all know it -

but they are refusing to accept responsibility - ‘wasn’t me, guv, honestly - it was him, them, aliens, storm benjamin’ , anything

- they are responsible for the UK’s financial mess - do not let yourselves be distracted by arguments over brexit - the financial crisis is very little, or nothing - to do with brexit and all about a so-called government that’s spent, and spent, and continues to spend - doesn’t have the money - and is destroying jobs, and taxing, taxing, taxing people until they no longer feel it’s worth working.

That’s the situation - and it’s a typical labour mess. They’ve done it every single time - but it’s happened more quickly this time - and it’s going to get a whole lot worse over the next 4 years.

2 Likes

So the mess is nothing to do with 14 years of Tory government or leaving the EU?

8 Likes

But how do you determine what is “an appropriate level”? The UK’s state pension is lower than that of Luxembourg, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, France, Netherlands, Switzerland and Ireland.

It is marginally above the UK’s “average cost of living”, meaning it provides the absolute basics and nothing else. Of course we are all aware that a private pension top-up is pretty much essential, but it’s clear that UK pensioners are not getting any kind of “sweetheart deal”.

And is indexing it to inflation rather than average earnings necessarily fairer? All that does is preserve its value in real terms, which as mentioned is pretty borderline. If average earnings are higher, then everyone else in society is better off, as is the government through higher tax revenue. Why should pensioners not share if average prosperity rises?

I hasten to add that I do not have the answers to the conundrum of how to fund a decent state pension, just pointing out that the Triple Lock is not the “massive unfair handout” that is is sometimes depicted as.

3 Likes

I think it is fine - it would mean that costs are covered if prices increase therefore would be no worse off.

I don’t see the need to match UK pensions to those of other countries - there are so many items in those economies which would not be the same, why should pensions?

Just set it to an appropriate level then inflationary rises thereafter.

It is interesting that similar considerations are not paid to other “benefits” as to whether people are equally well off to other countries, and what if prices rise and what about earnings - I never hear similar discussions of other payments.

Pensioners are a powerful lobby.