4 hours ago
3
Once a political leader’s net favourability sinks deep into negative territory, recovery is the exception, not the rule. It usually takes an economic rebound, a dramatic political reset or an opposition implosion to reverse the slide. Sir Keir Starmer’s personal ratings are in a danger zone from which few escape.
Yet the prime minister, like the Bourbons, has learnt nothing and forgotten nothing. He made a speech this week after coming close to being ousted suggesting he would “fight” on. He doubled down in parliament despite glaring errors in judgment. He forced out his cabinet secretary while his own failures remain unaddressed. He seemed to blame everyone but himself. When support slips and a leader answers with defiance, voters don’t see strength – they see denial.
The bigger picture, as the Resolution Foundation said this week, is that living standards are forecast to rise up by just 0.3% a year until 2029-30 – even weaker than the previous decade’s 0.4% annual growth, which included Covid and the energy crisis. Britain, under Sir Keir’s stewardship, is set to grow more slowly in “normal times” than it did during national emergencies.
The prime minister’s claim to responsible management is undone by his own incompetence. Public trust ebbs away – a worry when voters start shopping around and Reform UK is selling racism. Stagnation exposes governments that lack an economic model. That is why interventions this week by Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester mayor, and Daisy Cooper, the Lib Dem Treasury spokesperson, matter. Both accept that cost of living pressure is becoming politically dangerous and that the status quo isn’t working.
The Lib Dems want to shake up Whitehall. They are calling for a break up of the Treasury and its replacement with a new department of growth based in Birmingham. The most radical idea is that the growth department would set fiscal policies. That might be a very good idea if it opened up the space for productive cash injections with an acknowledgment that fiscal deficits are required to rebuild the social democratic space.
By contrast, Mr Burnham’s plan is a revolution: roll back Thatcherism and restore politics to the heart of economics. Hence his call for electoral reform, abandoning the parliamentary whip system and replacing the House of Lords with an elected senate of nations and regions. A new political settlement, he says, is a precondition to achieve public control of essentials – such as housing and utilities – to reduce costs and support productivity.
Mr Burnham’s distance from Westminster – after his path back was closed by Sir Keir – gives him freedom to speak out. His proposal logically implies a constitutional role for metro mayors. In this vision, the national government sets the macro framework; regions control infrastructure and housing, and the senate safeguards territorial interests. That would be a welcome and different version of the UK from today’s Treasury dominated unitary state.
Zack Polanski’s Green surge has made radical talk respectable and cost of living politics inescapable, especially ahead of an upcoming Manchester byelection in what was a safe Labour seat. The Greens are part of a wider revolt against Britain’s economic model. From Labour’s soft left, Mr Burnham offers structural overhaul, while the Lib Dems promise a growth engine, and the Greens push redistribution. Meanwhile, Sir Keir’s Labour is governing inside a failed model rather than replacing it. That looks politically fatal.
-
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
