From Waspi ‘betrayal’ to winter fuel cuts, Starmer’s U-turns will come back to haunt him

Sir Keir Starmer cannot have much enjoyed his last session of Prime Minister’s Questions for the year. The leader of the opposition, Kemi Badenoch, did her job and embarrassed Sir Keir with a timely reminder of the misery being inflicted on older people by the cuts to the winter fuel allowance.

This is a move which, reportedly, the prime minister privately now concedes was a “mistake” – and which he must now regret. Hitting Britain’s hard-up pensioners with this unwelcome Christmas present was one of the earliest of the blunders in policy and in presentation that the government has made since it came to power; yet, despite the slump in their poll ratings, there seems to be no end in sight to the missteps.

In the months since the election, communications have become Labour’s greatest weakness, where once they were a formidable strength. The winter fuel cut was a nasty surprise, deeply unpopular – and there was no inkling of anything like it being contemplated by the party before Labour ministers were safely ensconced behind their ministerial desks.

Ms Badenoch also made a passing reference to another U-turn, and one even less pre-ordained: the plight of the Waspi women. But it was backbenchers from his own party and others who repeatedly rose to skewer Sir Keir and his colleagues.

He was asked whether he understood their pain – and how he can now justify denying them the “justice” that he and others promised them apparently in good faith before the general election. It is not so much the merits of the case that are causing the government difficulties but the glaringly awkward fact that Sir Keir and his senior colleagues publicly and enthusiastically endorsed the campaign waged by the Women Against State Pension Inequality.

Rightly, the prime minister seems ill at ease when his past remarks are played back to him. These women have undoubtedly been disadvantaged by the planned changes in the pension age made in the 1990s – and Labour backed them.

So, the pleas made now by the prime minister, the chancellor, Rachel Reeves and the work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall that 90 per cent of their cohort was aware of what was happening sound distinctly tin-eared, if not outright dismissive and offensive.

That is not what these politicians said when they were desperate for votes and cheerfully photographed with delegations of Waspi women campaigners, pledging their personal backing and offering help. Pre-election, Sir Keir said that “we need to do something” about this “real injustice”. Well, nothing is going to be done.

Once again, the government is charged with saying one thing before the general election, only to perform a violent U-turn in the months since it won its landslide majority, albeit on a relatively modest share of the popular vote.

It has been witnessed time and again, to such a degree that it is almost becoming a pattern of behaviour – and also, ironically, in stark contrast to the new style of politics promised when Sir Keir was leader of the opposition. It was the case with the hikes in employers’ national insurance contributions, with reducing inheritance tax relief on farms – the “tractor tax” – and on cancelling infrastructure investment.

To all of this, the government has an all-purpose response: the £22bn “black hole”. There’s some justification for that because the Conservatives did leave the public finances, the hospitals, the prisons, schools and much else in a poor state of repair (often literally); but, as Ms Badenoch points out, Labour has also made choices of its own – political choices.

It is here that ministers have failed to prepare the ground and botched the timing of their moves, putting far too little effort into winning the arguments. For each of these painful U-turns, there is context and explanation, a case to be put and policy judgements to be made that could – and should – have been fairer.

The withdrawal of the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners, for example, was rushed and would have been better presented as part of the Budget. It should have been placed in the context of the triple lock and Labour’s continuing commitment to both that and the drive against pensioner poverty.

Their response to the struggles of Waspi women would have been better received had Sir Keir and Ms Kendall explained that the welter of bills for historical scandals and injustices places extreme pressure on the public finances.

The earliest of these, the compensation for the nuclear test veterans, dates back to 1952; the infected blood scandal to the 1980s; the Post Office Horizon and Capture proclamation to the 1990s; and so on. Given that these, albeit different, injustices are now being fiscally addressed, it feels wrong that the Waspi women should get zero help.

After all, the compensation for the other scandals came after lengthy and independent investigations; and the ombudsman did recommend payments to the Waspi women.

Even if the full amount, some £10bn (itself far lower than earlier estimates of the cost), could not be accommodated in present circumstances, then a compromise figure may have eased the outrage and the sense of betrayal. It would have been more just and acceptable – and avoided the worst of the political damage. It would also have been the right and balanced thing to do.

It’s a long way until the next election but if Sir Keir wishes to avoid becoming a Bidenesque one-term premier – and to complete his self-described “decade of renewal” – he will need to start being more of a politician with an instinct for public opinion and effective communication, and less of the lawyerly civil servant manque that he’s been since 4 July.

Internal critics decry those around him as a bunch of “librarians and academics”, lacking political nous. They are right – and the party leader needs to change all that. He could make a start by looking once again at the winter fuel cut, the tractor tax and injustices inflicted on the Waspi women.

It would make an excellent new year’s resolution.