Starmer’s incoherent policies are a sign of his desperation to survive

Were the election to be held again now I would expect there would be far fewer people voting for Starmer and his party than a year ago. Never mind the rise of Reform UK, I think it’s reasonable to say that knowing what they know now, many people would have kept Sunak and Hunt rather than have Starmer and Reeves (and I’m a fan of neither).

The last year has not been pretty. It did not take long before Starmer started breaking his promises on benefits and taxes. Then, after his minsters and backbenchers prostrated themselves to defend him, Starmer has now reached a Ted Heath level of U-turns to win popularity. The climbdown on Winter fuel payments will not stop the episode being remembered, and Nigel Farage will take the credit for forcing him to change his mind.

Now Starmer is finally agreeing to a national inquiry on rape gangs., having previously said it was not necessary. What will his U-turn be next week? Where will Reeves find the money for these uncosted changes to what were previously claimed to be vital to plugging a £22bn black hole in the public finances?

Starmer’s moral compass now always points to self-preservation.

The result is incoherence born out of short-termism. Policies are contradictory and unnecessarily costly as a result. While Starmer drives the Labour tank forwards – and then abruptly into reverse – the hopes of his disciples are crushed on the Westminster lawn. Along with those promises to his followers, everyone else's ambitions are made dust under the tracks of his T34.

The EU Reset hasn't resolved the Irish Sea border. He claims to be adopting dynamic alignment (foregoing our own decision making by adopting EU laws) but nothing has yet been published and more talks are required. We have conceded £1bn of fish stocks annually (until 2038) as the price of simply being able to speak to the EU. It is utter ineptitude.

Meanwhile Starmer’s hypocrisy is best illustrated by him continuing with Wes Streeting’s Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which will not apply in Northern Ireland because, as several Lords pointed out in the Bill’s Second Reading, it is the EU’s Tobacco Products Directive that applies in Northern Ireland (as it does in the Republic of Ireland). Interestingly, the view of the Irish Government is the UK Bill’s generational ban on tobacco sales is incompatible with EU law, so that provision cannot apply in the province.

Why then continue with the Bill rather than drop it and apply dynamic alignment with the EU tobacco directive that the UK voted for when still an EU member? The case for pausing is even stronger in Northern Ireland given the UK land border with the Republic provides a ready-made smuggling route for organised crime and paramilitary groups to exploit. With Ireland looking to introduce a ban on people under 21 smoking tobacco the potential for additional problems around contraband is huge.

Last month Starmer paused the application of legislation introducing a 9.00pm watershed and online advertising ban for foods with high fat, sugar and salt content, so why not pause the tobacco Bill? Is it simply because Starmer has no votes he can lose in Northern Ireland?

Then there is the problem of non-tariff barriers such as the EU Deforestation Regulation which gives clear preference to EU farmers (European forests were cleared during mediaeval times to build navies and in the industrial revolution to supply fuel). Having been identified by the US Trade Agency as an unfair trade practice that could prevent of US exports to a value of $8.6 billion p/a the EUDR represents a significant threat to international trade.

By capping total oil palm plantations at 6.5 million hectares Malaysia has decreased their total area by 4.2 per cent over the past four years. This stands in stark contrast to other vegetable oil producers like Brazil, which has increased its soybean area by 6 million hectares – equivalent to Malaysia's entire oil palm area accumulated after a century of cultivation.

Similarly, Malaysia’s ambitious reforestation target of planting 100 million trees has been met ahead of its 2025 deadline. This is larger than China’s programme of 70m trees and Brazil’s 73m trees. In the UK we recognised the great distance Malaysia has travelled in tackling deforestation by cutting its palm oil tariffs.

Yet when the EU recently announced its rankings to determine the non-tariff regulatory burdens countries will face, Brazil and Malaysia were placed equal, even though Brazil lost a huge 2.8 million/ha of primary forest last year (its 2nd highest in 20 years) while Malaysia lost only 68.9 thousand/ha (its lowest in 20 years).

By moving towards dynamic alignment and adopting EU regulations the UK puts itself in the position of ignoring Brazil’s deforestation but punishing Malaysia’s reforms, pushing British food costs up in the process. It possibly also conflicts with the UK’s membership of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Add to this law-making incoherence the fact the trade deal with the US has also not yet been delivered (again, even though weeks have passed no legal texts are available) and it’s difficult to avoid concluding Starmer’s administration lives from day-to-day, swinging from one crisis to another.

Meanwhile, the public finances are approaching a tipping point towards a major crisis – with public spending increasing while revenues are falling short of estimates – meaning borrowing and taxes will need to rise to unsustainable levels. There will, however, be no U-turn on that approach.

Call it incompetence or desperation, Keir Starmer’s first year is not one to celebrate.

Brian Monteith is a former member of the Scottish and European parliaments and editor of ThinkScotland.org