 |
| Sir Keir Starmer and his cabinet (Image: The Independent) |
Former Home Secretary, David Blunkett has summarised the first nine months of this Labour Party government best. When he appeared recently on BBC Radio 4's Today Podcast, he praised Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer on his handling of areas such as international diplomacy, as well as some domestic policies. The key improvement needed moving forward, to do better on 'spin'. Blunkett compared how easy the Prime Minister he worked under, Tony Blair, had it in his first years in the late 1990s compared to Starmer's in the present day - and although Blair announced similarly challenging and seemingly unpopular policies, such as the introduction to university tuition fees, he was able to still get on the side of the UK public, which is an area you could argue that Starmer is struggling with.
When you listen to Blunkett, you could tell he wanted to avoid saying the word 'spin', as it is deemed a derogatory term in modern politics. What he tried to convey in that podcast interview was that the way the announcements were being conveyed, during his time in government, softened any possible blow to those impacted by challenging and unpopular policies. And that is ultimately what is missing with the current sitting government.
It's important to note here that Blair announced even more unpopular policies in years to come which looked to threaten his future of Prime Minister, but he somehow led three general election victories. The invasion of Iraq and his cosy relationship with then-US President George W. Bush aside, the British public saw tangible results in their pockets and future prospects, and that translated to loyal votes. That was until, of course, it didn't, when in 2007 he knew the global economic crisis was going to be extremely tough for him to handle as Prime Minister. He suspiciously resigned at the apt moment and left it to Gordon Brown to sort the incoming mess which led to the start of Labour's decline.
The ultimate lesson to take from Blair's time at Downing Street is that it's not what you announce, it is how you announce it. His introduction to tuition fees meant that prospective higher education students were going to be out of pocket, though, in doing so, he lifted a cap on the number of attending students. He positioned universities as prestigious establishments which could be accessed by all. At that stage, government alone couldn't support British institutions if they're to compete against the best in the world, and to accept the next generation of talent regardless of their social class. And while it initially translated to fewer applicants, more people now than ever before - from all walks of life - are studying a degree or a higher qualification.
Today, tuition fees are in excess of £10,000 per year (£9,000 more than in 1998), however, 2.9 million attended a place of higher education in 2023/24, almost a million more than in 1997/98. Yes, it will take decades for most students to pay back the Student Loan Company from the fees, but people like me who went to university don't mind sacrificing part of our current salary for it, even though we know that previous generations never found themselves in tens-of-thousands of debt to further their career prospects.
When you compare the above to what this Labour government is announcing, you could forgive the polls for saying that the party's chances of any future election success are slim. "Taxing farmers," "taking winter fuel allowances away from millions of pensioners" and "cutting billions from welfare benefits to then increase funding on defence," will bound to put people on edge, especially nowadays when we tend to judge a policy or any given situation by clickbait headlines over reading the entire context.
In truth, these policies have some logical explanations behind them, and we still technically do not know how many will be directly impacted by these cuts or taxes. Winter fuel, we would have, because it took effect last winter - 10 million reportedly lost out. Charities like Age UK were aghast but if you were to ask the majority of pensioners who didn't receive their £300 if they had truly missed out, they would have still been able to heat their homes without thinking it would harm their bank accounts. They were ineligible for a reason and would have seen that small financial boost as a nice-to-have.
This similarly applies to inheritance tax being 'imposed' on some farmers. What the protesting farmers don't realise is that perhaps only a small handful would actually need to worry about it, and they're the ones who can more than afford the additional expense. The rest would not reach that certain threshold, so be absolutely fine. It's the government's way of saying that anyone who can pay and help the treasury fill its apparent £22 billion 'black hole' further, should. It's putting off millionaires who would rather not contribute to helping those in need and thus leaving the UK, but it shouldn't anger the millions of people - largely the keyboard warriors - who won't be impacted by these policies.
Sadly, this isn't being conveyed by Starmer nor Chancellor Rachel Reeves. They come across as mortified headmasters walking into classrooms telling every pupil off when they ought to take that one naughty child to one side. It also doesn't help when their ministers talk guff to the media, like Darren Jones, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who rather melodramatically declared that 'globalisation is over' because the United States imposed heavy tariffs on the world when actually, later that week, his colleagues negotiated new and supposedly lucrative deals with India and others. Globalisation doesn't start and stop at the White House.
Even when Labour ministers try to be positive, the execution could not be more the opposite. When Liz Kendall, for instance, announced that welfare benefits were being cut so more people who were previously deemed 'unfit to work' can return to employment, almost echoing what George Osborne said in 2015 when he was Chancellor. It didn't go down well then, and alas it hasn't gone down well now. But when you read between the lines, the policy targets those who are exploiting the system - those who claim benefits when they really shouldn't. I can think of a handful of examples of people getting cars and a decent salary-load of cash simply for stating they're caring for someone who either doesn't need caring or are being cared for elsewhere. The system does need changing, so it can actually benefit those in need. The question is whether the Department of Work and Pensions can accurately pinpoint those breaking the system and not target those who are genuinely unable to work. Kendall needs to learn from past failings.
What I'm explaining isn't 'spin', and I'm not trying to justify supposedly unpopular policies. These policies are only unpopular because they've been pitched so poorly. And the doom-and-gloom messaging will be damaging for Labour in the upcoming local elections, and if the party isn't careful and continues with the negativity, would look ahead to next year's Welsh, Scottish and mayoral votes rather nervously. The key is to relax and say explain with context rather than encouraging clickbait garbage.
Comments
Post a Comment