The Labour Party should apologise for the unnecessary cost of by-elections in Brighton and Hove within a year of the local elections

Two by-elections are to be held in Brighton on 2nd May, the same day as the election for the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner. The by-elections in Queen’s Park ward and Kemptown ward come following the resignations of Chandni Mistry and Bharti Gajjar, the so-called Leicester Two who were thrown out of the Labour Party following allegations that they don’t actually live in Brighton. A referral alleging electoral fraud was made to Sussex Police who have recently said no action will be taken over the claims.

Labour’s candidate in the Queen’s Park by-election, Camilla Gauge, with ward councillor Tristram Burden (Photo credit: Tristram Burden X / Twitter)

Council leader, Labour’s Bella Sankey, told the Argus that she was “overjoyed” by the decision of the two councillors to “do the right thing and step down” and said they should “never have been selected as candidates”.  She said: “The people of Queen’s Park and Kemp Town can now elect new councillors that will listen to their needs and serve them properly.”

I’m not sure if “overjoyed” is the right word for it. This whole mess is the making of the Labour Party who really should be offering an apology for the unnecessary cost of two by-elections. A by-election, depending on the size of the ward, costs between £12,000 and £15,000. These by-elections, together with the one held in December in South Portslade, will bring the total to three by-elections caused by Labour since last May’s local elections, at a cost of between £36,000 and £45,000. What a waste of public money at a time when cuts are being made to essential service.

The apology should come from the national or regional Labour Party who took over the selection of candidates in Brighton and Hove. Perhaps the Labour Party should be offering both an apology and an offer to reimburse Brighton and Hove City Council for this unnecessary cost.

One person who should not apologise is Bella Sankey who was not the Leader of the Labour Group at the time of the selections and the election. She must be so frustrated by this and other decisions made by the regional Labour Party, such as not enabling someone with her qualities to be the Party’s candidate in Brighton Pavilion. 

As for the by-elections themselves, Labour should hold on comfortably to both seats. In Camilla Gauge, who is standing in Queen’s Park ward, Labour has chosen an exceptional candidate who will bring experience and great ability to the Council, not least her expertise in tackling violence against women and girls. As far as I am aware, the Party is yet to select its candidate in Kemptown ward.

The Greens have traditionally had some success in Queen’s Park. How close they come to challenging Labour will provide an indication as to the mountain the party has yet to climb in recovering from its worst election defeat in 20 years in Brighton and Hove.

As for the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, they have about as much chance of winning as a lame and blind donkey would have had winning the Gold Cup at the Cheltenham Festival this last week.

Update: 4.45pm 16/03/2024 Theresa Mackey has been selected as Labour’s candidate for the Kemptown by-election.

Was Sir Keir Starmer being honest about Labour dealing with homelessness and rough sleeping in Brighton and Hove?

(This item first appeared in the Brighton Argus on 28th February 2024)

Tent outside Brighton Station (photo credit: The Argus)

Last week The Argus reported that a large four-person tent had been put up outside Brighton Station. The homelessness campaigner, Daniel Harris, was quoted as saying that the council cannot promote Brighton as a business and investment hub “while the first thing people see when they get here is a tent.”  He correctly points to the daily safety risks facing homeless people especially those in tents. As someone who has worked in homelessness services for over thirty years, I was also quoted in the article as saying: “(Tents) are not safe for people living in them or those working to help them. If someone has an emergency inside a tent, it can’t be seen.”

The answer, of course, is the provision of housing with the right support. But as Daniel points out, “limited housing options” in Brighton means it is difficult for people to escape rough sleeping. He says that what is needed is a strategic approach which “involves building more council homes, council-owned emergency accommodation to modern standards ensuring safety, and relocating those without genuine local ties where feasible and safe to so.”

The City Council was alerted to the presence of the tent on Monday of last week and it was gone by the weekend. The Chair of the council’s housing committee, Councillor Gill Williams, said: “Our street homeless outreach service always works with tent dwellers to help them find accommodation. Our primary concern is … the welfare of people living in them. We have a welfare first approach and offer help if those in tents are homeless, and always take action to remove encampments as soon as these circumstances and due legal process allow.”

When the leader of the Labour Party, Sir Keir Starmer, on a visit to Sussex last week, was asked by The Argus what a Labour government would do to tackle the homelessness crisis in Brighton, he said that given Labour has formed the administration locally, it was now in a position to help people get off the streets. He said: “I do think in Brighton, in particular, before we took over the council they didn’t put the support in place to deal with this. Luckily, we are now in a position to now turn this around. And that means providing not just a roof but also the support that people need.”

I was shocked by this disingenuous and misleading statement from the Labour leader. Under the previous Green administration, the one area where there was excellent collaboration and joint-working between the Greens and Labour, was on housing, homelessness and rough sleeping. Credit for this should go to the former Green councillors David Gibson and Siriol Hugh-Jones, and their Labour opposite number, Gill Williams. This joint approach often enjoyed all-party support including from the Conservative Mary Mears. But the council’s efforts were frustrated by the government’s squeeze on local government finances. Nevertheless, under successive Conservative, Labour and Green administrations, the council has continued to fund accommodation for over 700 people who have been, or might otherwise be, sleeping rough. In its budget agreed last week, the Labour administration is not investing anything extra into homelessness prevention. In fact, funding to help people move away from Brighton is under threat. 

For Keir Starmer to have made such a misleading assertion suggests that he was either badly informed or being dishonest. Perhaps he should set the record straight and give credit to the Greens where credit is due rather than make this cheap and dishonest bid for votes. 

A question that Sir Keir Starmer must answer is: will a Labour government provide the resources to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping by funding the necessary accommodation and the support homeless people need to get people off the streets, address underlying issues, and to help them into employment?  I fear that with Labour’s self-imposed spending restrictions, tackling rough sleeping and homelessness will not receive the priority it did under the Blair government when the Rough Sleepers Initiative saw a massive fall in the number of people sleeping rough. 

And critically, will Labour invest in the building of council houses, in their hundreds of thousands? Without this, the UK’s housing crisis will only get worse.

Given Sir Keir’s assertion that the Labour administration is now in a position to turn the homelessness problem around, let us hold the City Council to account by seeing whether it is providing enough accommodation for homeless people and also the support they need to move away from homelessness and into employment. Sir Keir says you are in a position to do so. Now let’s see you do it.

Rishi Sunak: an empty shell in an expensive suit. My review of the year.

(This item first appeared in the Brighton Argus on 27th December 2023)

As we approach the new year, many will reflect on the last twelve months.  Who would have thought that we would have witnessed the near terminal implosion of the Conservative Party? Even in the last three weeks, the party has further torn itself apart over one of its flagship policies – immigration and the ill-conceived Rwanda initiative. Rishi Sunak looks increasingly forlorn and tetchy,  . He can’t please the left or right in his own party. What hope has he of convincing the country that they can trust the Conservatives?

The May local elections in Brighton and Hove saw the humiliation of the Green Party, seeing the number of its councillors slump from 21 to just seven, a result even worse than the eleven I had forecast, a forecast that had attracted scorn from several Greens. The Conservatives fared slightly worse, ending up with an historic low of just six seats. In the case of the Conservatives, the blame for their performance was down entirely to their national leadership, while the Greens locally were the architects of their own misfortune. They were poor communicators, poor administrators, and exceptionally poor politicians.

The Brighton and Hove Labour Party had its most successful election ever, winning 38 seats. But the wheels have begun to come off. Within six months, two of their councillors had been expelled from the Party following allegations that they might actually live in Leicester; another has been removed from committees and representing the Council because of a rather innocuous, dated tweet that has been interpreted as transphobic and for which she, regrettably, apologised; and a fourth has resigned just six months after being elected.  One must wonder about the competence of the Party that failed to do basic due diligence before imposing three of these candidates on its members and on the electorate.

Internationally, the war in Ukraine rumbles on without any sign of a solution. That conflict has been overshadowed by the appalling terrorist attack in southern Israel on 7th October that sickened all reasonable, decent people. The physical and sexual violence on that day should have been condemned without reservation and should continue to be condemned.  What followed has seen an unacceptable loss of life amongst thousands of the civilian population of Gaza.  The humanitarian disaster we are witnessing in Gaza should also be condemned by all reasonable, decent people. One horrific war crime does not justify another, nor should any of it justify the increase in anti-semitism in the U.K.

On a personal level, after 41 years working in the housing and social care sector, 37 of these with the wonderful charity BHT Sussex and 20 years as its chief executive, I retired. I was given a wonderful send off and humbled to be awarded an Honorary Doctorate by the University of Sussex. In retirement I have been freed from the daily stress of leading a large organisation with over 300 employees that works with 10,000 people annually. Gone, too, are the out-of-hours crisis phone calls. Gone is the accountability to a Board, a regular source of stress for many chief executives. Gone, too, sadly, is the monthly salary!

All that has been replaced by a different pace of life, one that has allowed time for reading, thinking, writing and walking Molly the Dog. My wife cannot believe that there is so much cricket, rugby and football that demands to be watched, the highlight for this South African being the Springboks winning the Rugby World Cup for a record fourth time.

So what comes next?  The English men are unlikely to match the success of the Lionesses in the Euros. Will there be much for Brits to celebrate at the Paris Olympics, and will Britain once again score nul point in Eurovision? There is likely to be a general election in 2024 and only a fool would bet against a thumping Labour majority. But how long will it take before the gloss comes off the Labour government as it adheres to Conservative spending plans while not growing the economy at a rate necessary to meet the hopes and aspirations of the electorate?

Will the Conservative Party exist this time next year, or will it have become the two parties that seem determined to emerge? Will the Greens retain Brighton Pavilion? It’s all to play for, in my opinion, as the Londoner Siân Berry is up against the local Tom Gray. For those of us who love elections, this is likely to be a bumper year, and I for one cannot wait for hostilities to commence!

Eddie Izzard’s Political Obituary

Congratulations to Tom Gray on his selection as the Labour candidate for Brighton Pavilion. The contest between him and Siân Berry will be fascinating, and I will write about this in more detail at a later date. For now I wish to focus on the political obituary of Eddie Izzard.

Eddie Izzard (photo credit Brighton Argus / Andrew Gardner)

There are a number of points worth  noting, the first being the ludicrous decision of the Labour Party to shortlist him. As I have said before, like Siân Berry, Izzard is not local which, if selected, would have denied Labour a critical advantage over the greens. And given he will be spending the first part of 2024 in New York, he would not have had time to establish himself locally as Siân Berry has done. 

But his performance in the selection campaign has been woeful, as is his grasp of policy issues. Rachel Cashman, one of those who attended the hustings meeting this afternoon, said on : “… history revisionism and ‘trans candidate’ aside, I was struck by just how poor, unfocused, incoherent, lacking in policy or position, local knowledge & unable to answer questions Izzard was.”

Over the last few weeks Izzard raised a number of issues that he said he wished to prioritise. Amongst these, he said he would “fight to keep our schools open”, increase “good, green jobs of the future here in Brighton”, “enhance Brighton’s cultural offering”, “bring global investment to the city”, “work with the police to bring community policing onto the streets of Brighton Pavilion”, “champion the arts and ensure creativity is always celebrated”, and “… make Brighton Pavilion a model for sustainable urban living”. 

All the above would be great but an MP has little practical influence over any of the above. Perhaps he should have put himself forward as a candidate for the by-election in South Portslade given that the arts, economic development, community policing in a locality are influenced more by local councillors than by a Member of Parliament. How could Eddie Izzard be so lacking in understanding about Parliament and local councils? Why was he not vetted properly by the Labour Party before allowing him to make an utter fool of himself?

He said that because of his profile as a comedian, he was “excited to elevate Brighton Pavilion’s profile”. Forgive me for being a cynic but I suspect that the profile of this city is far greater than that of a has been comedian.

But most of all, there was something about Eddie Izzard that many, many people in Brighton and Hove would find unacceptable. I’m not judgemental and not prejudicial, but some things are just not acceptable to any reasonably-minded Brightonian. Eddie Izzard is a Crystal Palace supporter.

I suspect that this is it for Eddie Izzard’s aspirations to become a Member of Parliament. Given that he has said that “fighting for Brighton in Parliament would be the culmination of a lifelong journey” and that “every step I’ve taken has led me here”, how can he possibly assert a commitment to any other town or city foolish enough to consider him as a candidate.

Has Labour sabotaged its own campaigns in Brighton Pavilion and in East Worthing & Shoreham?

(This item first appeared in the Brighton Argus on 15th November 2023)

Following the King’s Speech, there is speculation now as to when the general election will be called. Three dates have been suggested: May, the early autumn, or December 2024. The election must be held by January 2025.

My guess is that Rishi Sunak will go for late September or early October. An April poll would be too early for any Budget giveaway to have any effect. December would mean very dark evenings, although a low turnout might benefit the Conservatives. The reason I believe it will be September or October is because any tax cut or give-away bonanza in the spring Budget will have had time to settle in.  However, any such election gimmick will probably be too little and too late for this walking-dead Conservative government.

In Brighton and Hove, the early autumn date would mean that students will not have returned in time to register to vote, something that would seriously disadvantage the Greens in Brighton Pavilion who rely on a large student turnout.

Previously, I have forecast that Labour would win seven seats in Sussex (including taking Brighton Pavilion from the Greens). I have predicted the same number of seats for the Conservatives with the Liberal Democrats winning two. This forecast is now being compromised by the inexplicable actions of the Labour Party which appears to be doing its utmost not to win in East Worthing and Shoreham, and in Brighton Pavilion.

In the Worthing seat, not a single local candidate has been shortlisted. The party has denied party members the options of selecting as their candidate either of two respected Labour councillors, Cat Arnold and Carl Walker, such a shortsighted decision. Labour has performed phenomenally well to gain control of the Borough Council, yet the party seems not to want to build on its success in this constituency. Meanwhile, in Worthing West, the Labour leader of the council, Dr Becky Cooper, has been shortlisted. The party would be foolish not to select her as its candidate as she stands far-and-away the best chance of being elected.

Labour has never won either Worthing seat but the migration of families from Brighton has changed the demographics, just as happened previously in Hove and Portslade, once the safest-of-safe Conservative seats, now solidly Labour.

The Green Party’s Siân Berry who has hit the ground running in Brighton Pavilion

Meanwhile, in Brighton Pavilion, the Greens selected Siân Berry several months ago. She has hit the ground running and her name recognition is increasing. Labour, on the other hand, is dragging its feet. Originally the selection was due to take place in September. Two contenders, Eddie Izzard and Tom Gray, have already announced that they are seeking the nomination. Even if the selection was to take place now, the problem for Labour is it would run into the Christmas period and its candidate, whoever that might be, will have lost three months of invaluable campaigning time. Instead, they will have to wait until the new year, in the depths of winter, before launching their campaign. This would be less of a problem if the election is in September or October but might prove to be a fatal error if Sunak goes for May 2nd or 9th.

There is still no word from the leader of the Council, Bella Sankey: will she be seeking the nomination? The timing of the decision by Caroline Lucas to stand down has not helped Bella. As a relatively new councillor, and having been leader for just over six months, it might appear that Bella is being opportunist by becoming the candidate and subsequently MP, jumping from one opportunity to the next to get into Parliament. 

But if she doesn’t put herself forward now, which would be a shame, the opportunity to become an MP in the City she loves will have passed. By 2029, whoever is elected in 2024, be it Siân Berry or one of the other less-than-convincing Labour contenders, will have established themselves as the sitting MP and they will be hard, if not impossible, to shift. By 2029, Bella won’t be the exciting new kid on the block but she will be burdened by the failings of her administration, a fate that inevitably befalls every leader of the Council.

And by 2029, Labour will not be enjoying the bumper lead it currently has in the polls, thanks to the ever-increasing shambles of a government being led by Rishi Sunak. Rather, a sense of sheer disappointment and bewildered incomprehension will have set in as the Starmer government fails to provide the improvements and the housing that the country needs, unlike the Blair government which on the domestic front in 1997 things really did get better. 

Are the Conservatives on course to lose all seats in Sussex?

(This item first appeared in the Brighton Argus on 25th October 2023)

The King accepts the resignation of Liz Truss and asks Rishi Sunak to form a government

Today is the anniversary of Rishi Sunak becoming Prime Minister. Earlier in the day, the outgoing PM, Liz Truss, had been to the Palace to see the new King, just 49 days after she had flown to Balmoral where the late Queen had invited her to form a new government. Following years of tradition, the King asked Sunak, who had been elected the leader of the Conservative Party the previous day, to take over.

The Conservatives are well-versed in forming governments. After all, they have had five prime ministers in just seven years. Sunak has lasted longer than Truss, but how much longer will he survive? There are already rumours that members of the Conservative Party are submitting letters to the Chair of their backbench committee calling for a vote of no confidence in him. 

It would be understandable if a combination of their lead in the polls, and last Thursday’s two by-election results in Mid Bedfordshire and Tamworth led Labour activists, MPs and the party’s leadership to believe that a Labour victory in the general election is now nailed on. They are probably right. However, the Labour leadership has had political-Botox that makes outward-showing signs of confidence impossible.

The Conservatives have dismissed the by-election results, saying that it is almost inevitable that sitting governments lose by-elections, and that there is still a year until the general election. Anything can happen between now and then.

But make no mistake, these by-election results were sensational even though Tamworth was a Labour seat until going Conservative in 2010. Mid Bedfordshire was the more remarkable result, overturning a Conservative majority of almost 25,000.

It is unlikely that Labour will hold Mid Bedfordshire come the general election. Worryingly for Labour, there was no groundswell of support for the Labour candidate. In fact, the Labour vote went down by 156 from the 2019 election. The Conservatives point to the low turnout, saying that it was their voters who just didn’t turn out and that there was no enthusiasm for Labour and its lacklustre leader, Sir Keir Starmer. A modest increase in turnout by Conservative voters next year will see it returning to its traditional blue.

Meanwhile, election-guru, Professor Sir John Curtis, points out that a failure to get your vote out is indicative of your party’s malaise. And that is certainly true for the Conservatives. Which Tory party activist in their right mind can feel any enthusiasm for the bumblings and fumblings of the current government. Like a wonky shopping trolley, they lurch from one crisis to another. 

Some in the current government make former minister Chris Grayling look vaguely competent. It was Grayling who destroyed the probation service, created chaos in the prison system, and awarded ferry contracts to a company with no ferries, a company that operates out of a harbour that cannot accommodate … ferries. Anyone would have thought Grayling was once in charge of the high-speed train initiative, HS2, that has gone over-budget by billions of Pounds and which the government is now curtailing. Wait a minute, Failing Grayling was once in charge of that, too.

The Covid enquiry is showing that we had a prime minister (Boris Johnson) who was initially disengaged. As Churchill said of the Americans, Johnson could always be relied on to do the right thing … once he had exhausted all other possibilities. He locked down too late, and unlocked too soon. He ridiculed Starmer saying that the Leader of the Opposition had wanted to cancel Christmas while he, as Prime Minister, wanted restrictions to be lifted. Yet only a few days later he had to do just what Starmer had called for. All this time he was loyally supported by his poodle Chancellor, Rishi Sunak.

And in the last week or so we learned through the enquiry that Sunak, as Chancellor, launched the ‘Eat Out to Help Out’ initiative in spite of misgivings by the government’s leading scientific advisers including Professor Dame Angela McLean who dubbed him ‘Dr Death the Chancellor’. 

For just a bit of fun, Election Maps U.K. applied the Tamworth result across the country. If the swing and result there were to be applied to every constituency, Labour would have a majority of 424 seats with 537 MPs, the Lib Dem’s 46, the Conservatives 29 and others 19. On this basis the Conservatives would win no seats whatsoever in Sussex. That won’t happen, of course, but Sunak will have to pull one giant rabbit out of his magicians hat to avoid a humiliating defeat next year.

Election Materials from the 1980s 1

While sorting out some old papers, I came across some election materials from the 1980s.  I will post copies of various leaflets and press cuttings over the next few weeks and months.

At the time I was a Labour Party member (I left in 1994) and a councillor between 1985 and 1987, and from 1988 to 1992.  It was time when members of the Labour Party were proud to describe themselves as ‘socialists’!

Here are the the first four documents (click on the image for a larger version).

Labour’s leaflet in the old King’s Cliff Ward. One of the candidates, Des Turner, was elected as the Labour MP for Brighton Kemptown in 1997.

The Argus front page report of my election in the Regency Ward by-election in April 1985 (becoming the first ever non-Conservative to be elected to represent that part of Brighton at any level of government)

Labour’s Record from election addresses in May 1987

My election leaflet from May 1987

Sir Crasharooney Snoozefest Starmer defied expectations with a competent, engaging and inspiring speech. But Labour’s home ownership obsession disappoints

Over the last couple of years I have been critical of Sir Keir Starmer, not just for the absence of policy and his ultra-caution, but because of his lack of personality. I’ve said he is boring.  In fact, I have gone further.  In April I wrote that “Starmer is probably the most boring and uninspiring politician of my lifetime”.  I continued: “He teaches those parts of boredom that other politicians do not reach.”

This was too much for a mutual friend, Andrew Wealls (a former Conservative councillor in Hove) who reprimanded me: “Keir has been a close friend of mine for around 40 years. I’m fairly confident you’ve never met him, otherwise you wouldn’t repeat so frequently such disparaging remarks about him. As you know Keir and I differ politically, so feel free to criticise his politics! But repeatedly calling him boring doesn’t elevate the debate.”

Andrew was right.  I haven’t ever met Sir Keir Starmer, so I don’t know what he is like in private. However, as a commentator who is non-aligned (although left of centre) I just say how I find him. Others I speak to are less generous than me, even though they are Labour Party members and want him to be the next prime minister. 

I did laugh when Boris Johnson described Starmer as “old Sir Crasharooney Snoozefest, the human bollard.” It was actually very funny.

But today I wish to recant.  Having heard his speech at the Labour Party Conference in Liverpool, I have to say it was one of the most competent, engaging and inspiring speeches from a Labour Leader for quite some while, and perfect in the run-up to a general election.

He will have enthused his troops and will send them on their way with renewed vigour and enthusiasm. There certainly wasn’t any evidence of the old Crasharooney Snoozefest.

If this was the first major test in the long election campaign, Sir Keir passed with flying colours.

There remain a number of questions over his policies, not least the welcome commitment to build 300,000 homes per year.  1.5 million homes in the first term of a Labour government would be great. But they need to be the right sort of homes.  This is where I will take the advice of Andrew Wealls to criticise policies because Labour is priding itself on becoming the party of home ownership.  A commitment to home ownership is the recycling of failed Conservative policies.  At least Angela Rayner said that Labour will give local authorities and housing associations “stability for the long-term, so they have the confidence and security to invest in affordable, social and council housing stock.”

But Sir Keir said today that the party would “bulldoze through” a planning system that was “an obstacle to the aspirations of millions, now and in the future, who deserve the security of home ownership”, and Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves said: “It is now beyond doubt: it is Labour that is the party of homeownership.”

What we really need is more of the Angela Raynor approach, with 300,000 council houses each year.  That is the real need.  Without that we will not begin to address the housing affordability crisis.  Home ownership won’t do that.  We also need the investment in council housing. Without it, Labour’s housing ambitions are bound to fail and that will fail the country.

Why choosing Eddie Izzard as its candidate in Brighton Pavilion would be a disaster for the Labour Party

When the Green Party selected Sian Berry to be its candidate to defend the Brighton Pavilion seat at the next general election, I wrote that “Sian has no know links to the city while being heavily committed to London. She will be seen as a carpetbagger and an opportunist who is being parachuted in from afar.” A bit harsh, perhaps, but a positive factor for Labour.

I also warned that Labour “has been slow off the mark in selecting its candidate, surprising really as Brighton Pavilion is one of its key targets…” I said that the party “needs to select a sensible, local candidate. Choose badly and it might let the Greens back in.”

Eddie Izzard (photo credit Brighton Argus / Andrew Gardner)

So today’s news today that Eddie Izzard wants to be Labour’s candidate must be music to the ears of Sian Berry and the Greens. Like Berry, Izzard has no know links to the city while being heavily committed elsewhere, will be seen as a carpetbagger and an opportunist who is parachuting in from afar.” Choosing Izzard would neutralise an advantage that Labour might otherwise have.

One must also question whether Izzard is best suited to be a candidate in one of the most demanding of parliamentary seats. It is one thing for a celebrity to make a brief entrance to help with campaigning on a particular day, to be photographed and adored, before heading off to their next stop on the celebrity campaign trail.

It is another thing to slog their way around the constituency, night after night. There won’t be cameras and adoring crowds on a cold, wet Tuesday evening in Brentwood Road. (For Sian and Eddie’s benefit, Brentwood Road is in Hollingdean, a housing estate off Ditching Road accessed by the No 50 bus).

Choosing Sian Berry was not the best choice by the Greens. Choosing Eddie Izzard over a local candidate would be a mistake for Labour.

(See here for why I believe that the Greens will lose Brighton Pavilion at the next general election)

How many more U-turns can we expect from Sir Keir Starmer?

(This item first appeared in the Brighton Argus on 26th July 2023)

Labour’s failure to win the Uxbridge by-election has been blamed on ULEZ – the Ultra Low Emission Zone, a charge based on vehicles and emissions designed to reduce pollution. Now Sir Keir Starmer is backtracking on his commitment to this environment-friendly policy. U-turns by Starmer are nothing new since he became Labour leader.

Sir Keir Starmer (right) and Sir Tony Blair

When standing for the leadership, Starmer made a range of commitments.  All wannabe Shadow Ministers fell over themselves to endorse this new dawn for Labour. It wasn’t the policies that had cost Labour the 2019 election, they said, it was the former leader, Jeremy Corbyn. 

In the leadership election he called Corby his “friend” and would continue his friend’s work. He has now blocked Corbyn from standing for Labour at the next election because of his stance on anti-semitism within the party, something that apparently did not bother Starmer when he was in Corbyn’s shadow cabinet and was hoping to become a Cabinet member under Corbyn.

Top of Starmer’s list of commitments, the first nine words of his leadership pledges, were: “Increase income tax for the top 5% of earners.”  That commitment has gone and Starmer is now committed to lowering taxation.

He promised to nationalise (or, in his words, to bring into “common ownership”) rail, mail, energy and water.  With the timing of a genius, just when such a policy would be almost universally popular, he jettisoned the plan to bring into public ownership the big six energy companies.

In the leadership election, he pledged to end the private sector’s involvement in the NHS. He specifically said he would “end outsourcing”.  A year ago he said that a Labour government would  “likely have to continue with” some private provision in health services. 

Having said in his leadership campaign that he would “work shoulder to shoulder” with trade unions, he has sacked his shadow rail minister, Sam Terry for publicly supporting striking rail workers.

Sir Keir’s commitment to abolish university tuition fees (a central plank of Corbyn’s platform, one on which Starmer was elected to parliament in 2019, and one that he repeated when standing to succeed his friend), has also gone.  He now says that a Labour government will look at lowering graduate monthly repayments, that the party is “likely to move on from (the abolition of tuition fees) commitment.”

Last week we had the latest U-turn: the dropping of the commitment to abolish the Conservative’s cap on Child Benefit to be payable for just two children.  This policy was described as ‘vile’ and ‘pernicious’ by countless front benchers. Starmer previously described the cap as ‘inhuman’. According to the Guardian, one Labour frontbencher said that even if the policy was popular with focus groups, it was “toxic, morally wrong and doesn’t work”.

Patrick Maguire, the Red Box Editor at The Times who is usually well-informed on these matters, reported that not one member of the Shadows Cabinet spoke out against Starmer’s latest U-turn at a recent meeting where it was discussed.  Pat McFadden, Lisa Nandy and Jonathan Ashworth (the same Ashworth who last month described the cap as ‘heinous’) are reported as having spoken in support of Starmer’s change of heart at last week’s Shadow Cabinet meeting.

Part of Labour’s problem is the increasingly authoritarian, tough-guy imagine being cultivated by Starmer.  He tolerates no dissent.  He sees himself as a modern-day Tony Blair. Even though, like Blair, he has a Conservative Party in total shambles, Sir Keir has neither the personality nor the personal popularity to be a new Blair. (For the record I didn’t like Blair but can acknowledge his abilities and popularity prior to Iraq).

Starmer and Rachel Reeves repeat the mantra that they will not make any commitments that can’t be paid for.  It’s hardly the stuff to inspire.  In defending Starmer’s U-turn, Lucy Powell said on ITV News: “There just, frankly, is no money left (sic).”  

But Jonathan Portes, professor of economics and public policy at King’s College London, said this claim is “laughable”. “This is an absurd way of talking about policymaking. Talking about there being no money left is the economics of the kindergarten.”

Portes said: “The idea we do not have money to spend around £1bn to help hundreds of thousands of kids living in deprivation … is ridiculous and no serious economist would support that, regardless of ideology.”

There is money. There is always money to fight wars. Labour is just prioritising lower taxes for the very rich over Child Benefit for the very poor.