The Budget will give Keir Starmer a chance to correct his mistakes

Wisely, as it turns out, Sir Keir Starmer and his team didn’t make a fuss about their first “hundred days” in office after they won the general election in July.
The end of that period is coming up shortly, and, even if they’d ever intended to mark it in some way, recent events haven’t commended themselves for much celebration. The media verdict will be, at best, heavily caveated; and the polling suggests that the public are, on the whole, unimpressed. It’s been a bit disappointing.
The departure of Sue Gray, the prime minister’s chief of staff, comes after some weeks of unseemly briefings and counter-briefings to the press about the power and salaries of those who are currently helping to run the country.
Insofar as the general public have paid much attention to the affairs of Ms Gray, her rival (and now replacement) Morgan McSweeney, and the outgoing cabinet secretary, Simon Case, they cannot have thought that things were running smoothly.
Observing the series of missteps, “tough” announcements and minor contretemps that have erupted since “this government of public service”, as Sir Keir terms it, took over, they might reasonably conclude that it needs more time to settle in. They would be right – and that time, along with the patience of the public, is running out.
By way of excuse, it’s been suggested that Sir Keir was unlucky in the timing of the election, because it has meant that the first Labour Budget in 15 years has been delayed by the parliamentary recess, and by the statutory requirement to consult with the Office for Budget Responsibility.
Without such a landmark event to lay out priorities and set the “narrative”, the argument runs, Sir Keir – via the chancellor, Rachel Reeves – has been left without a suitable opportunity to explain himself.
There is something in that, but it is only partly convincing. The backbiting in No 10 would have continued unabated – and the so-called “donorgate” revelations would have been eagerly seized upon by the right-wing press all the same. The riots would still have taken place, though their firm handling by the prime minister would have rightly redounded to his credit.
The announcement about cutting the pensioners’ winter fuel payment would have gone a bit better in the context of filling the £22bn “fiscal hole”, but it would still have been unpopular.
Indeed, according to the latest rumours emanating from the Treasury, the chancellor would also have had to explain why her plans to impose VAT on private school fees and tax the non-doms more heavily are not, after all, going to raise the expected extra net revenues. (A secondary question would be why such dodgy costings were so proudly presented as fact in the Labour manifesto.)
An early Budget, in other words, would have helped the government to seize the agenda, but the prime minister and his colleagues have had ample opportunity to map out the future – and, it must be acknowledged, have attempted to do so. Ms Reeves has tried to argue that her decisions on social security (winter fuel and child benefit) were essential to fixing the public finances – but has had less success in justifying the apparently generous pay settlements for train drivers and junior doctors.
Wes Streeting, the health secretary, has eloquently set out the case for reform, and a hard-headed approach to using the private health sector to rescue the NHS; but those on waiting lists are understandably worried about how long this will take.
The education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, is heavily exposed to failure if the funds she needs to recruit more teachers cannot be found. And while there is little doubt that Sir Keir is an honourable man who declares everything that is donated to him and his party, he’s been less successful in proving that he needs a wealthy sponsor, even one who asks for and needs nothing in return, to pay for his suits and spectacles. Some freebies are difficult to defend, such as Angela Rayner getting £836 to go to a disco in Ibiza.
The last two Labour leaders to take power after a long period of Tory hegemony – Tony Blair in 1997 and Harold Wilson three decades before (such events are rare) – were rather more showy personalities than Sir Keir, and they both rather self-consciously wished to give the impression of a dynamic administration set upon the urgent task of modernising the nation. A “new Britain” was the theme. It may have been moonshine, but at least it was a theme, and an upbeat one.
Sir Keir rightly wanted to abandon Boris Johnson-style mindless boosterism, and wished to be more straight with the people when he warned them that “things are going to get worse” – but he forgot to add that they’d therefore eventually get better as a result of the sacrifices.
Evidently, while Sir Keir has not been short of people who want big jobs in his administration, he has been short of someone to describe the overarching “narrative” for the work of his government. Explaining what this Labour government is for, aside from dislodging the Tories and teaching them a lesson, has in fact been a weakness since Sir Keir became leader of the opposition.
Soon, the Budget will present an opportunity to correct this failing. It should define the prime minister’s “missions” more precisely. It won’t be a joyous event, nor even a “Robin Hood” one where the poor benefit from the tax hikes on the rich; but it can be presented as part of a plan for growth – and, for a change, a credible one. The pain has to be balanced by a feeling that it is for a reason, and not just sado-masochism.
The argument is that the public finances need to be underpinned as a necessary (but not sufficient) precondition for growth, by keeping interest rates down and inflation stable. There needs to be a more convincing plan to boost trade and investment in this difficult post-Brexit environment.
The Budget can also help to highlight the wider social missions already underway: reform of renters’ and workers’ rights, as well as the clean energy revolution and beating the migrant-smugglers. This early in Sir Keir’s government, there is no need for him to panic (and he’s not the type – perhaps too much the opposite, if anything). But there is an urgent need for him to tell us what Britain will look and feel like in three, four, five years’ time. Sooner or later, after all, we’ll find out.