Starmer’s administration is beset by crises. Downing Street is in chaos, many of the government’s flagship policies are on the rocks, and ministers are spending more time batting away growing allegations of cronyism and corruption than they are explaining policies. What ties these issues together is a catastrophic failure of communications and messaging.

This is most obviously seen in how Starmer tried to define himself while in opposition. While the Tories were filled with crooks, cronies and careerists, his Labour party was united, committed and defined by integrity and principle. This message was carried right into Downing Street, with his speech on the steps of Number 10 promising a “politics of service.” His administration would focus on the serious business of governing, rather than infighting.

Now that was a deliberate choice, and a choice that paid off in the election. It also wasn’t the only choice on offer. The last government also had serious problems when it came to competency. It imposed a record high tax burden, yet delivered failing public services. Anaemic levels of growth, yet record levels of immigration. Every time it promised to do something, it failed to deliver. Starmer could have positioned himself in opposition to this. Instead, the focus was on his character.

The result has been devastating. To some extent, the media plays by the rules set by the politicians, in terms of what constitutes a story. And with every penny spent by Conservative politicians scrutinised relentlessly, every donation to the party targeted for potential cronyism, every policy interrogated for hints of opportunism, every appointment assumed to be crooked, and every example of disquiet in government portrayed as another volley in the Tory civil war, the rules were made clear: Labour in power need to be whiter-than-white. The stench of cronyism now wafting from every nook and cranny in Labour-dominated Westminster is emanating from a dish of their own making.

Labour is in power to enrich, empower and embolden the public sector

An even bigger catastrophe can be found in the philosophy and policies of Starmer’s Labour, and the messaging around it. Some question whether a philosophy exists at all. To me it’s abundantly clear. Labour is in power to enrich, empower and embolden the public sector. It’s a public sector first philosophy. A government of bureaucrats, by bureaucrats, for bureaucrats. It doesn’t despise the private sector like its Labour predecessors does, with the Corbyn view being less “public sector first” and more, “public sector only”. But it does have a very instrumental view of the private sector: its purpose is to be a piggy bank for the public sector, rather than its existence being virtuous or beneficial in its own right. 

Despite this relatively clear governing philosophy, it hasn’t even tried to communicate it. There are echoes of the last government. The Conservatives talked right, but governed left as Kemi Badenoch pointed out. Labour are to some extent doing the opposite. The focus of their messaging since coming to government is the £22 billion black hole, as if Labour supporters, voters and activists care. They elected a Labour government to boost spending, to throw money at problems until they go away. There’s no such thing as “not enough money.” Just borrow more, or tax more. Whereas the people or organisations that talk of fixing fiscal black holes might appeal to, such as my organisation the TaxPayers’ Alliance, look at the numbers and immediately realise that half of it comes from the inflation-busting pay hikes you’ve doled out to every public sector worker. This is a message that no one cares about, or no one believes. 

Another part of Starmer’s approach has been to promote experts, lawyers and officials as judge and jury for government policy, rather than parliament and politicians. Whereas Liz Truss ignored the Office for Budget Responsibility, one of this government’s first acts was to enhance the quango’s powers using legislation. This message is now colliding with the fiscal black hole message in a spectacular way, as Rachel Reeves confronts head on the nightmare of empowering experts and bureaucrats to this extent. Because the result is that almost every single tax proposal she had planned is currently disintegrating, given Treasury warnings that VAT on private schools, increases in capital gains tax, and the closing of non-dom loopholes may not raise the revenue she hoped. But Labour party supporters, voters and activists don’t support these tax rises to raise revenue, not really. They support them because they believe they will address inequality. But Reeves can’t now ignore the experts. Again, leaving Labour with a message that no one cares about, and no one believes.

There are signs that they are learning — for example the framing of Reeves’ decision to not go after pensions tax relief is because it will hurt nurses. But think of how different it could have been. When announcing the means-testing of the winter fuel allowance, this cash could have been promised for nurses. There would have been pushback, but the question for any politician involved would be “how would you fund pay rises for nurses instead?”. Again with the taxes on wealth and the wealthy, Labour could have framed these as addressing inequality. Instead they pitched these as revenue raisers, despite this obviously being a fantasy. The result of this dead end is that this country may be saved from some of the worst Labour policies. But ultimately, the public sector will grow ever richer, and the bureaucrats ever more powerful.