The King, in his address yesterday, began by highlighting the increasingly perilous and unstable state of the world, posing a significant threat to the United Kingdom.
In light of these challenges, there is a pressing need to bolster the nation’s economic competitiveness to support robust national defense systems.
It is likely that His Majesty, along with many citizens, fully grasps this necessity. However, as tradition dictates, he delivered a speech crafted by the Prime Minister, which unfortunately fell short of outlining a strategy for economic rejuvenation.
A government truly committed to addressing threats such as energy insecurity, cyberattacks, and military aggression would prioritize defense spending over welfare. By reallocating funds from social programs to national security, the economy could be revitalized.
Regrettably, the current administration does not embody this approach. The proposals put forth by Keir Starmer appear to be focused on prolonging political tenure rather than implementing practical, sustainable solutions. In an effort to appease his party, he seems willing to endorse policies that are financially and logistically unsustainable.
As a result, the King’s Speech missed the mark on critical issues including welfare reform, the potential resumption of North Sea oil drilling, and strategic tax reductions. Instead, it introduced a litany of new regulatory measures spanning sectors such as water, railways, concert ticket sales, and housing—shifts that further skew the balance from private enterprise to state control.
A government that can, with a straight face, propose something it calls a ‘Regulating for Growth Bill’ is not serious about growth.
Of course, we already knew that. But even the pretence is now being dropped. Instead of finding ways to cut borrowing, spending and taxation, and so to return to the levels of growth that we used to enjoy before the Gordon Brown years, Starmer has come up with a series of proposals aimed narrowly at buying off his MPs for a few more days or weeks.
We had a King’s Speech that ignored what is urgently needed and instead proposed a series of new regulatory powers, on everything from water and railways to concert-ticket sales
Everything that Keir Starmer now proposes is aimed at eking out a few more days in office
Hence, for example, the pledge to nationalise steel. The only other Labour leader since Michael Foot to have demanded a state-owned steel industry was Jeremy Corbyn. All the leaders in between had come to understand that state ownership hurts productivity.
Steel nationalisation has been tried twice before, in 1949 and 1967, and was a disaster both times. What makes these people imagine it will be different now?
Indeed, the current quasi-nationalisation of steel, which happened precisely 12 months ago, is costing taxpayers around £2million per day, according to data extrapolated from Parliamentary answers to the shadow business secretary, Andrew Griffith.
That money is largely going to a Chinese company – a company that looks like it is being let off decommissioning liabilities of a reported £2billion, again at taxpayers’ expense. But Labour MPs love the word ‘nationalise’, so who cares about the dosh? For a couple more weeks in office £2billion is, as far as Starmernomics goes, a decent return on investment.
Then there was the Bill to agree to sign up unilaterally to EU standards and regulations. For what it’s worth, I think there is a case for getting closer to the EU economically. But only if doing so does not come at the expense of our relations with the rest of the world. It is crazy to prejudice our commerce with growing markets in order to prioritise our trade with a shrinking market. Again, though, this is not primarily about economics. It is about appealing to the prejudices of Labour MPs so as to win over one or two more supporters.
Even as low politics, it is a strange tactic. Labour has just been obliterated by Reform in its old working-class heartlands. If its response is to lurch into deeper European integration, it is prioritising the feelings of its MPs over the desires of its electorate.
As for the rest of the Government’s programme, it ranges from displacement activity to self-harming measures.
Votes at 16 is one of the most hypocritical policies ever included in a King’s Speech. Labour has backed the raising of the age of consent from 16 to 18 for everything from Botox treatment and buying knives to leaving full-time education and getting a tattoo. It is even now seeking to ban minors from going online. But, yet again for essentially tribal reasons, it now wants those youngsters, whom it treats as children in every other context, to determine national policy.
Of course, it adopted that pledge when Labour was ahead among 16- and 17-year-olds. Now, teenage girls are mainly voting Green, and teenage boys are more likely to vote Reform than Labour; but, for ‘vibesy’ reasons, the policy lumbers on.
In theory, Streeting could return to the Blair formula. In practice, the dynamics of a Labour leadership contest are likely to push every candidate, including Streeting, further Left
The proposal to remove individual members of the House of Lords is an example of why you should never pass a general law in response to a specific case. The Mandelson saga reflected badly on Starmer so, in an early attempt to move the conversation on, he proposed a mechanism to dismiss peers who, while they might have committed no crime, fell foul of some standards committee. Does anyone imagine that that power will not be used against political opponents?
So the list goes on: scrapping jury trials, taxing holidaymakers, subsidising renewables, attacks on the rental market. If these were only so many smoke bombs thrown by a frightened PM who does not know when it is time to leave, that would be bad enough, because the changes we urgently need, and that Labour had initially promised, are not happening: NHS reform, a slimming of the welfare budget, ambitious new housing.
But in among the smoke bombs are some actual bombs. More welfare spending, more money for the EU, more powers for regulators, a weaker private sector and a smaller tax base.
Might a new leader behave differently? Starmer has now lost the support of every Labour affiliated trade union, and Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, is about to challenge him.
In theory, Streeting could return to the Blair formula of encouraging growth and then using the consequent revenue for whatever projects he likes. In practice, the dynamics of a Labour leadership contest are likely to push every candidate, including Streeting, further Left. Expect even more pledges on regulatory control, nationalisation and, above all, spending. In other words, next year’s King’s Speech could well make yesterday’s look like one written by that great prophet of neoliberalism Milton Friedman.
We are dealing with MPs who simply refuse to accept the laws of physics. The prospect of a more Left-wing government has pushed up the cost of borrowing, and that money has to come from somewhere. We are now spending a lot more on servicing debt interest (£110billion) than on education (£90billion) or defence (£60billion).
A Labour MP, Paula Barker, said this week that ‘the markets will have to fall into line’, which is rather like saying that the weather will have to fall into line. Yet Labour MPs, most of whom have spent their working lives being funded one way or another by the taxpayer, refuse to understand this point.
Diane Abbott speaks for many of her colleagues in insisting that Britain can order largely foreign creditors around. ‘If the Government is to be completely dominated by the bond market,’ she said, ‘MPs might as well go home.’
This is true, but not in the way she means. By refusing to slow the growth in spending – let alone return to pre-pandemic levels – the Government is ensuring that it will indeed be dominated by the bond-market. And, yes, when it happens, there will be nothing MPs can do about it. That is the consequence of the choices they are making now.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere is a Conservative peer.
