fbpx
| The Beat |

Landslide? What Landslide?   

Labour’s first year in power has, even its supporters will admit, not gone well. So, what’s gone wrong?

TO paraphrase Democratic senator Lloyd Bentsen’s pithy put-down of his 1988 vice-presidential opponent, Dan Quayle — Prime Minister Starmer, you’re no Tony Blair.

A year after Labour’s 1997 landslide, Tony Blair’s approval ratings were in the 70s, and he polled 20+ points ahead of the Conservative opposition. On Keir Starmer’s anniversary of leading Labour to a similarly sized victory, his approval rating is a dismal 34%, and the insurgent Reform Party tops the polls by 6%. Despite a Pyongyang-sized parliamentary majority, Labour’s first year in power has, even its supporters will admit, not gone well. So, what’s gone wrong?

Assisted Dying

While metaphors abound for the government’s seemingly determined efforts to sink itself politically, the Assisted Dying Bill, legalizing assisted suicide for terminally ill adults, which passed Parliament late last month, is no joke. While not a government bill, its passage would have been impossible without Starmer’s tacit endorsement. Pre-election, the Labour leader himself promised a pro-assisted dying campaigner he would hold a vote on the issue, and now his blithe assurance, made from the comfort of opposition, has come back to bite him.

The bill squeaked through by a majority of just 23, and two of its most vocal ministerial opponents, the Health and Justice secretaries, are the ones tasked with its execution and funding — though it seems there will be no extra money for the responsible departments. For now, the bill will go to the House of Lords for further scrutiny and amendments, but should it become operational, it will be an almighty headache for the government.

U-Turns Ahead

Most Labour MPs cut their political teeth opposing the post-financial crisis spending cuts imposed by the Conservative government, arguing austerity was a morally indefensible political choice. Back in government now, funds are tight once again, and they’re being asked to support cuts they find impossible to stomach. But the government seems unable to stick to its fiscal guns and has U-turned on two deeply unpopular and controversial welfare cuts. This has enraged loyal MPs who were forced to defend the measures, only for the leadership to cave in.

Nor has the government endeared itself to the more socially conservative wing of the party. After branding calls for a national inquiry into a series of crimes perpetrated by Pakistani immigrants “a far-right bandwagon,” the government has authorized said inquiry. And Starmer has expressed regret for using provocative language in a speech warning of the socially destructive effects of mass migration.

The man who had no ideology burdening him on his ascent to power also has no political compass to direct him through the perilous path of government, and his MPs, many of whom do not expect to hold on to their seats at the next election, nor advance up the ministerial ladder, are becoming increasingly mutinous.

PM Nigel Farage?

What was once a laughable impossibility is now looking more probable than ever. With a despairing electorate, government in perma-crisis, and still-irrelevant Conservative Party, Reform’s momentum shows no sign of abating. Their pitch savvily straddles social conservatism and redistributive economics, and their success is borne out by the largest advanced YouGov poll since the election last year, which predicts a hung parliament with Reform as the largest party. A year on from the election, Labour’s victory looks more hollow than ever.

YIMBYs vs. Unions

Few issues epitomize California’s dysfunction like its housing crisis. The median home price now tops $900,000, and building regulations are a burdensome thicket of environmental and employment rules.

But Governor Gavin Newsom’s aggressive push to expand homebuilding has run into opposition from a group that would normally be his allies — labor unions, who are outraged at the push to deregulate and slash wage minimums in order to speed up development. Arguments that bureaucracy and excessive costs drive up living costs for the working class the unions claim to represent have fallen on deaf ears; the labor movement points the finger squarely at what they see as fat-cat developers looking to line their own pockets at the expense of workers.

Newsom has been forced to compromise, U-turning on the minimum wage cut, and accompanying deregulation is expected to be pared back as negotiations continue. Yet another of California’s progressive policies has come back to haunt the state’s liberal standard-bearers.

Vacation Hotspot: Afghanistan?

It’s an unlikely tourist destination: a poverty-stricken, until recently war-torn, oppressive Islamic regime, run by radical clerics. But Afghanistan is starting to draw visitors; 9,000 foreign tourists last year, and nearly 3,000 in the first quarter of 2025. Those numbers are tiny, but they are increasing.

The Taliban takeover in 2021 was brutal, and spelled doom for the country’s women, who are barred from work, study or outside activities, but it did bring stability. To critics who condemn tourists for coming on a pleasure jaunt to a country with such a vile regime, visitors say their presence in no way indicates support for the Taliban, and in fact the cash they bring directly benefits the people, rather than the government. The landlocked country has millennia of history and tradition, and beautiful landscapes. So, tour of the Tora Bora, anyone?

Multilaterals on Mute

During Trump’s first term, multilaterals like the G7 and NATO were aghast at his contempt for their institutions, choreographed summits, and platitude-laden communiques. This time around, the alliances were better prepared.

It may not have stopped him leaving the G7 summit early last month, but the group of industrialized nations are learning to play by the president’s rules: They’ve exempted the US from a minimum corporation tax threshold to avoid threatened tariffs on their own goods.

Deference to Trump was also very much in evidence at the NATO summit the week after the G7 gathering. Though joint talks normally stretch over multiple days, they were condensed into a couple of hours to keep Trump’s attention, and most countries came bearing significantly increased commitments in defense spending, hoping to shut down Trump’s long-held grievance over European tight-fistedness on security.

It worked. Save for a wobbly moment over the US’s commitment to Article 5, in which NATO members pledge to support each other in the event of attack, and some anger at Spain, whose socialist PM wouldn’t cough up much cash, the summit concluded without any major arguments, and with Trump reaffirming support for Article 5. It’s Trump world, and all multilaterals are now living in it.

 

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1068)

Oops! We could not locate your form.