Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
timeLabour’s political opinion clearly makes this case The government’s recent transformation has certainly been colorfulbut not much inspiration confidence. Decision on lifting the injunction digital ID card The employment inspection scheme is said to be akin to “scraping the barnacles off the boat”.
In this political context, this quote is often attributed to Conservative strategists Sir Lynton Crosby. This means that for a political party to achieve electoral success smoothly and with maximum efficiency, it needs to give up all kinds of extraneous commitments, distractions and negative factors that may affect its image over time and thus damage its appeal.
In this case, however, the logical conclusion is that a policy Prime Minister The thing he was so proudly trying to relate to just a few weeks ago has to be disposed of now because no one wants it or believes it will work.
Digital IDs were supposed to be Perched proudly on the bow of a Royal Navy ship labor A dynamic hydrodynamic symbol of “national rejuvenation”. Rather, it is compared to governmentHis own officers responded to a stubborn, unwelcome, useless crustacean that clung to the hull of the Labor flagship and dragged it off course. A more unfriendly observer might suggest that Sir Keir Starmer is the biggest barnacle.
Most people try to mark the count of numeric ID as 13th U-turn Within 18 months of Labor returning to power. This has clearly become a bad habit, and there’s no reason to think it will be corrected in the near future. In fact, there are rumors that a “U-turn on the 14th” is coming. Tough plans to restrict the age-old right to trial by jury will also be “tweaked” in the face of unease within the parliamentary Labor Party.
Starmer government has changed its mind on everything trans rights arrive child welfare Comply with fiscal rules. Some reversals are catastrophic.
a relative A modest attempt at social security reform Things were so bad last summer that they had to be cancelled. This had a lasting effect, empowering Labor backbenchers, catastrophically undermining the Prime Minister’s authority and, most importantly, knocking welfare reform off the agenda, and probably for the rest of Parliament as well.
Other big shifts have also been unequivocally welcomed. For example, rethinking the WASP issue was the morally right thing to do, even though it was actually a U-turn that restored Labor support while opposing the return of lost pensions. It is also reasonable to (mostly) restore Winter fuel allowance for pensionersjoin Sir Keir to hear first-hand the real-life impact of inheritance tax changes on real family farms and act on this information.
But that’s not the point. The question is, why is it that a government with a five-year “transformative” mandate and an overwhelming majority cannot deliver this? Its policies are correct in the first placewinning arguments and ensuring that their own MPs support their decisions.
The government is the leader of the world’s sixth largest economy. It has the full machinery of the British state, a total budget of around £1.3 trillion, and an almost record number of special political advisers providing wisdom to ministers – 42 in Downing Street alone. But things still go wrong. Too many “unforced” mistakes and too many gifts to the opposition. It gives the impression of “chaos and confusion” – exactly where Labor is supposed to end when the “grown-ups” come to power in July 2024.
Too many policies are not properly thought through, “joined up” or tested for their consequences. This may be expected Amateur populist organizations such as Reform UK — but not a party of power claiming to serve the country.
This is certainly what happened with the Farm Tax and Pub U-turn – the secretive Treasury failed to adequately consult with other ministries, let alone the industry groups representing those affected. The original digital ID scheme and jury policy reforms appear to be under-researched and insufficient to address irregular migration and the court system. They had little political appeal or practical application and, despite their profound influence, never appeared in the manifesto. So how did they become official policy?
There are other problems. It was obvious to ministers and their advisers that the public would never be satisfied with a full investigation into grooming gangs, so why was it resisted for so long? Why was disability and sickness benefit reform not properly put to Labor MPs, yet the arguments for reform failed so comprehensively?
If leadership is about getting things done, then Sir Keir needs to take charge. He is responsible. However, he cannot be held responsible for every mistake made by his ministers or advisers – and certainly not for the scandals Many people have mistakenly entered.
It is also telling that Sir Keir actually achieved great success in foreign and defense affairs when he was able to act as an individual, less constrained by party and parliamentary constraints. However, he does have some issues to work out. He is said to want to focus on cost-of-living issues as his party faces some tough elections in May. Given how accident-prone his administration has become, he probably won’t be allowed to do that.