Owen Polley: Starmer has been a poor PM but his Labour rivals are worse​​​​​​​

Twelve months ago, we could not possibly have predicted how quickly this government would become unpopular.

Already, many informed commentators, including writers from centre-left publications like the New Statesman, have expressed doubts about whether Starmer can survive until the end of 2025, never mind see out his term in office. It’s tempting to relish his misfortune, but it is not good news for the UK. And Northern Ireland is no exception.

The prime minister has certainly performed poorly. He has made confused decisions, explained his ideas badly and U-turned on important issues.

The problem is that many of the candidates who would like to replace him as Labour leader would probably be even worse. The same is true of some of the politicians who want to succeed Rachel Reeves.

After the chancellor’s tearful appearance in the House of Commons last week, the pound fell in currency markets. Investors were clearly worried that a more left-wing figure would soon be in charge of the economy.

The past two weeks provided vivid evidence of some of the drawbacks with Starmer and Reeves. But they also showed that Labour contains more dangerous elements.

Over recent months, the prime minister twice flirted with messages and policies that resonated with many people. He almost gave the impression, in explaining his reasoning, that he understood the problems this country faces.

The best example was his speech on immigration, which explored the threat of Britain becoming ‘an island of strangers’.

Like the Conservative government, Labour has struggled to manage overall migration figures or stop people arriving illegally on small boats. The tone of Sir Keir’s speech, though, made it seem that he not only grasped the practical difficulties caused by unchecked immigration, but also understood how it undermines the sense of belonging and togetherness that every society needs.

Unfortunately, rather than expand on this theme, some days ago he said that he deeply regretted his address. Indeed, he gave credence to some of the overwrought criticism he received, by claiming that neither he nor his speechwriters anticipated his words would be interpreted as echoes of Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech.

The other message that Starmer has partly retracted was on the government’s plan to tackle benefits dependency. This is an issue which we in Northern Ireland have struggled with as much as any other area of the UK.

Admittedly, Britain’s massive welfare bill is difficult for a left wing party to confront. The modern socialist assumption is that it is compassionate to keep benefits flowing freely, just as it is accepted that a ‘progressive’ country must open its borders to an unlimited number of migrants.

Ironically, the damage that such misguided policies cause is often felt most keenly in areas where Labour is traditionally strong. In 2019, many people in those constituencies voted Conservative for the first time, because a government led by Jeremy Corbyn was not trusted to manage migration and reward hard work.

Last year, they punished the Tories for failing to deliver on those priorities, deciding that Starmer could not do any worse.

His government duly announced a surprisingly far-reaching programme of welfare reform in May. More importantly, Labour justified its policies by talking about the damage caused by addiction to benefits.

Since the Covid pandemic, the number of welfare claimants has increased enormously. Many of the new claims relate to mental health or behavioural difficulties, even though the Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out that there is no comparable rise in long-term health conditions in working age adults.

For that reason, it is likely that the increase is instead caused by a rise in diagnosis of these conditions. More people than ever claim they are too anxious, depressed or vulnerable to work and they can usually get a doctor to agree.

No responsible government could ignore the financial, moral and societal costs this new wave of dependency is creating. Indeed, many critics said that Labour’s plans were already too limited.

Unfortunately, even this modest package was too much for the party’s backbenchers. It has been accompanied, since its announcement, by hysterical debating points and overly emotional language, which have been replicated at Stormont.

In order to get legislation through parliament, the prime minister gutted his original plans, which are now likely to be ineffective and will not save enough money. The chancellor, who is responsible for balancing the budget, was in tears in the House of Commons the next day, as her credibility was undermined.

It would be easy, and not inaccurate, to say that Starmer and Reeves’ weak leadership brought these problems on themselves. It’s difficult even to know whether they genuinely believed in tough but compassionate welfare reforms and action on immigration in the first place, or whether they developed those themes only to prevent voters from supporting Reform.

We do know, though, that there are almost certainly four more years of Labour government to come and the Conservatives still do not look like potential winners at the next election.

Despite its huge majority, Starmer’s administration looks weak, unpopular and incapable of confronting serious challenges facing the UK. Unfortunately, the likely alternative, an even more left-wing Labour government, could yet be infinitely worse.