I fear at this point that Starmer and Reeves' plan is 'cling onto power and hope that events overturn the table/Reform drops the ball so hard it breaks'*, and that they're therefore optimising for the PLP putting up with them for another year rather than anything that might actually help Britain.
*This is not an irrational strategy, it worked against Johnson. Farage is old enough that him suddenly dropping dead isn't totally impossible. However it is a strategy whose starting point is the Prince Harryesque "screw the country you're in charge of".
The downside with trying this strategy in government - beyond the important 'screwing the country' element you mention - is that even if Farage implodes/dies there's no guarantee those votes are going to go back to Labour rather than to the Tories/Lib Dems/Greens.
24 foot notes but not one for the wonderful "Shoe shop event horizon".
Budget is day before thanksgiving with Financial Markets pretty much closed for 5 days after. Bar Christmas eve worst day in year to hold it. If they cant even choose a sensible day to hold a budget I doubt they can produce a good budget.
I was also thinking recently what I would do if I were Rachel Reeves and came to a similar conclusion:
• Increase both the basic and top rate of income tax by 5p
• Use the extra revenue to cut or scrap various other taxes, invest in infrastructure, and reduce the national debt. Only increase public spending in areas where it seems likely to have a significant economic or political benefit.
• Scrap the pensions triple lock and the de facto minimum wage triple lock
• Bold deregulation, as much as I could possibly get away with, especially in planning
• Try and find public spending cuts that are not too unpopular among Labour MPs and voters
My reasoning was the same as yours: Labour is doomed anyway if they do nothing and everything is just a bit worse by the time the next election rolls around, with no economic growth and no achievements to boast about.
I agree the problem is not comms, but I think it's worse even than strategy. The article's title is right - Reeves has no good moves here, because the electorate thinks there's far more money available to spend on them than is actually the case.
In part that's Reeves' and Starmer's fault. They ran a campaign promising things the country couldn't afford, but short of saying "look, we lied to get elected, and all the other parties are trying the same" - which looks more like suicide than salvation - I don't know how Reeves can reset the country's expectations to a place that is deliverable.
Very excited to see a chess term in the title of this post!
relentlessly attached -> attacked
Loved the footnotes.
I fear at this point that Starmer and Reeves' plan is 'cling onto power and hope that events overturn the table/Reform drops the ball so hard it breaks'*, and that they're therefore optimising for the PLP putting up with them for another year rather than anything that might actually help Britain.
*This is not an irrational strategy, it worked against Johnson. Farage is old enough that him suddenly dropping dead isn't totally impossible. However it is a strategy whose starting point is the Prince Harryesque "screw the country you're in charge of".
Sadly I think you're right.
The downside with trying this strategy in government - beyond the important 'screwing the country' element you mention - is that even if Farage implodes/dies there's no guarantee those votes are going to go back to Labour rather than to the Tories/Lib Dems/Greens.
Great analysis
24 foot notes but not one for the wonderful "Shoe shop event horizon".
Budget is day before thanksgiving with Financial Markets pretty much closed for 5 days after. Bar Christmas eve worst day in year to hold it. If they cant even choose a sensible day to hold a budget I doubt they can produce a good budget.
I hadn't spotted that timing element!
I was also thinking recently what I would do if I were Rachel Reeves and came to a similar conclusion:
• Increase both the basic and top rate of income tax by 5p
• Use the extra revenue to cut or scrap various other taxes, invest in infrastructure, and reduce the national debt. Only increase public spending in areas where it seems likely to have a significant economic or political benefit.
• Scrap the pensions triple lock and the de facto minimum wage triple lock
• Bold deregulation, as much as I could possibly get away with, especially in planning
• Try and find public spending cuts that are not too unpopular among Labour MPs and voters
My reasoning was the same as yours: Labour is doomed anyway if they do nothing and everything is just a bit worse by the time the next election rolls around, with no economic growth and no achievements to boast about.
This is a great counter to the view-point that labours problem is ‘comms’. The problem is strategy not ‘comms’
I agree the problem is not comms, but I think it's worse even than strategy. The article's title is right - Reeves has no good moves here, because the electorate thinks there's far more money available to spend on them than is actually the case.
In part that's Reeves' and Starmer's fault. They ran a campaign promising things the country couldn't afford, but short of saying "look, we lied to get elected, and all the other parties are trying the same" - which looks more like suicide than salvation - I don't know how Reeves can reset the country's expectations to a place that is deliverable.
"relentlessly attached by children’s charities"
attacked?
Yes! Corrected.