I’m So Bored With the USA: Get a Grip!

 

 

“Committed for insanity and crimes against the soul

The worst crime that I ever did, was play some rock ‘n roll”

 

Oh dear, things just seem to go from bad to worse.

 

The economy shrank April and May, while unemployment and inflation have risen, as businesses and households come under pressure from tax rises, elevated borrowing costs, and global uncertainty amid Donald Trump’s trade war.

All of which leads economists to suggest Chancellor Reeves could face a £30bn shortfall against her fiscal rules, meaning increased tax or more cuts

Alison Ring, the director of public sector and taxation at the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, summed up the situation as:

“The government has two big problems with the public finances: the short-term outlook – which is bad – and their long-term prospects – which are worse.

“Unfortunately, the major challenges facing the public finances over the next quarter of a century and beyond means that this will not be the last time a chancellor of the exchequer needs to come back asking for more.”

 

‘the short-term outlook – which is bad – and their long-term prospects – which are worse’

 

With this in mind, I wanted to explore the PMs standing within his own party.

In order to start at the beginning, we consider his proposed policies during his campaign to be Labour leader in 2020.

 

1. Education: scrapping charitable status for private schools purported to £1.7bn. Reduced to VAT imposed on private schools and ending business rates relief.

2. The two-child benefit cap: during his campaign he tweeted: “Too many people today are struggling to make ends meet, held back by jobs that don’t pay enough; a social security system that has subjected people to the most appalling indignity; and a public sector that is on its knees after a decade of cuts.”

Last July, after being elected PM, Starmer told the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg Labour was “not changing” the Tory policy regarding the two-child limit.

3. Scrapping tuition fees: in May 2024 Starmer said; “We are likely to move on from that commitment because we do find ourselves in a different financial situation”, promising a “fairer solution!”

4. Increasing income tax for the top five per cent of earners: last May he decided that “We are in a different situation now, because obviously I think we’ve got the highest tax burden since World War II.”

5. Nationalisation of public services: in March 2024, shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves confirmed the policy had been scrapped, with only rail in line for nationalisation. More recently, in March, Starmer suggested “a massive move forward” on water quality could be made without nationalisation.

6. Freedom of movement: in November 2022 he decided that “It was part of the deal of being in the EU but since we left I’ve been clear it won’t come back under my government.”

7. A £28 billion “green prosperity plan”: replaced with a watered down solution that proposes Labour will “ramp up” to that figure by the midpoint of their first term in office.

8. Universal Credit: Starmer’s campaign promised to abolish this Universal Credit. In 2023, this had become “fundamentally reform Universal Credit”. By 2024, shadow work and pensions secretary, Liz Kendall, said there would be “no option of a life on benefits” under Labour.

 

To this rash of undelivered proposals, we can add the very un-Labour attacks on benefits for pensioners, the disabled and special needs children, the governments increasingly hardline stance on immigration, and mealy mouthed condemnation of Isreal’s behaviour in Gaza, where shopping is now a life-threatening activity: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2025/jul/22/food-aid-gaza-deaths-visual-story-ghf-israel

 

The first 12-months of his premiership can be summed as a huge disappointment, the rich have continue to benefit while the rest just get poorer.

It is, therefore, no surprise to see the government polling at C.25%, compared to Reform on 34%. https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/uk-opinion-polls

Starmer’s MPs must be equally despondent, and, given what he promised during his campaign to become leader, they could consider prosecuting him under the Trade Descriptions Act.

Rather than explaining himself and taking party members with him, he has become a disciplinarian. Unfortunately, rather then showing him as a strong leader, he looks rather pathetic!

 

‘The first 12-months of his premiership can be summed as a huge disappointment’

 

His panic appeared to set-in as July last year, only a month after his election, when the chancellor discovered the £22bn blackhole, Ever since we have been in panic mode, the first sign of this was withdrawing the whip from 7-MPswho had voted in favour of removing the two-child benefit cap that he had promised to abolish.

Last week, 4-more MPs lost the whip over their refusal to support proposed benefit cuts. Clearly, the PM hasn’t understood that muzzling protest over welfare cuts doesn’t make the policies fairer or more popular.

Three of the “July 4” were of the 2024 intake, however, Rachael Maskell was a former shadow minister; obviously, no one is safe.

Maskell summed-up the situation succinctly: “I don’t see myself as a ringleader, I joined with other colleagues who had similar concerns about this legislation. We ultimately do believe that cutting money from some of the poorest in our society is not what a Labour government should be doing.”

The problem isn’t just disillusioned MPs, the party has become one that can’t tolerate its conscience. Ministers who once revolted now back the purge exposing the factional logic at the heart of Starmerism.

Starmer also demoted three prominent ethnic minority MPs, symbolically stripping them of their (largely ceremonial) trade envoy roles.

Separately, Diane Abbott was suspended over racism claims for the second time, after saying she did not regret her past remarks on racism.

She now faces an investigation over her defence of remarks made more than two years ago that people of colour experienced racism “all their lives”, which was different from the “prejudice” experienced by Jewish people, Irish people and Travellers.

In a statement to Newsnight on Thursday evening, Abbott said: “It is obvious this Labour leadership wants me out. My comments in the interview … were factually correct, as any fair-minded person would accept.”

Speaking in support of Abbott, another of the vanquished, John McDonnell, said: “It is extremely bizarre that Diane Abbott gets suspended for an interview in which she forthrightly condemns antisemitism and racism in all its forms whilst no action is taken against those that inserted into Keir Starmer’s recent speech Enoch Powell’s racist language.

So far as I can see there is nothing discriminatory in her remarks, different ethnicities experience racism in different ways. Starmer doesn’t care about the Travellers or Irish, it’s just his appeasement of Israel that is offended.

 

‘Starmer doesn’t care about the Travellers or Irish, it’s just his appeasement of Israel that is offended’

 

Internal dissent isn’t a new phenomena for Labour; in 1997, Blair kept his 47 welfare rebels in the party; Clement Attlee weathered revolts. Perhaps both were more confident in their ability? Certainly both were more grown-up. Starmer’s action highlight his insecurity, especially as the concerns of the 47 rebel MPs, who voted against his benefit cuts, are widely shared by the public.

Perhaps the next candidate for losing the whip, will be David Lamy, the foreign secretary, who is “appalled, sickened” by the “grotesque” targeting of starving Palestinians seeking food by the Israeli military, saying there would be further sanctions if the war did not end soon.

If there is any consistency, Lammy would be described as being antisemitic, and facing disciplinary action.

Support for Palestine and Palestinians is becoming a dangerous undertaking.

Last week, armed police threatened Laura Murton, a peaceful protester, with arrest under the Terrorism Act for holding a Palestinian flag and having signs saying “Free Gaza” and “Israel is committing genocide”, accusing her of supporting a proscribed organisation.

Murton said neither of her signs mentioned Palestine Action. When asked directly whether she supported any proscribed organisations, she replied: “I do not.”

Murton was told that: “Mentioning freedom of Gaza, Israel, genocide, all of that all come under proscribed groups, which are terror groups that have been dictated by the government.”

And, the phrase “Free Gaza” was “supportive of Palestine Action”, which was “an offence under section 12(1A) of the Terrorism Act”.

The best summary of all this is the polls, which clearly show what voters think of Labour’s first year in government. The suspended MPs are not liabilities, they are simply voicing the concerns of the electorate. “By equating principle with disloyalty, Labour risks alienating not just its base but the very voters who handed it power.“

After the “sackings”, he was asked whether punishing the MPs made him look weak.

 

The best summary of all this is the polls, which clearly show what voters think of Labour’s first year in government

 

He replied: “We are elected in to change this country for the better, and that means we’ve got to carry through that change, and we’ve got to carry through reforms.

“I’m determined that we will change this country for the better, for millions of working people, and I’m not going to be deflected from that.

“And therefore we had to deal with people who repeatedly break the whip, because everyone was elected as a Labour MP on the manifesto of change and everybody needs to deliver as a Labour government. This is about what we’re doing for the country.”

The problem is simple; the MPs who elected him leader, and the electorate who made him PM have been misled. Nothing has changed, nothing will change. Labour are now closet-Tories.

Politically, Labour look to be on the scrapheap with the Tories. Reform are the obvious beneficiaries of both being out-of-touch, but there is always room, moreover a need for a party of the left

As I wrote in “Big Mouth Strikes again” Reform offer only noise, pandering to the electorates bigotry to further their own dislikes. Climate change and Net Zero fall firmly into this category with Richard Tice, Reform’s deputy leader telling energy firms they would reassess net zero commitments, adding: “As a first step, we will seek to strike down all contracts signed under AR7. You should treat any long-term revenue streams as politically and commercially unsafe.”

Reform’s Greater Lincolnshire mayor, Andrea Jenkyns, said: “Do I believe that climate change exists? No” Asked about the mass of evidence showing it was happening, she replied: “It depends what evidence you look at … I think it’s a way to actually make money.”

With Labour as closet Tories trying to outdo Reform, the closest we currently have to a leftwing party is the LibDems, who appear to have lost their momentum, with the polls showing them stalled on 11%. It will, however, be interesting to see what the proposed new party which includes Jeremy Corbyn might do. With all the sackings and disquiet within Labour, it wouldn’t be a surprise to see a number defect.

Turning briefly to the US we are beginning to see the effects of Trump’s tariffs, with US, carmaker GM reporting that its profits fell by $1.1bn in Q2 as a consequence.

GM estimates that the gross impact of tariffs will be between $4bn and $5bn this year, although it hopes to mitigate at least 30% of this through “manufacturing adjustments, targeted cost initiatives, and consistent pricing”.

Elsewhere, I read that the US collected C. $98 billion in tariffs as of 2 July 25. Unfortunately, the vast majority was paid by American consumers and importers — depressing their standard of living. Research implies that if this continues, the economy will shrunk by a similar amount to the money raised by the tariffs, meaning that American consumers and employees are subsidising their own economy.

 

Lastly, there I the ugly spectre of Jeffrey Epstein reemerging.

Whilst campaigning, Trump had labelled the supposed cover-up surrounding Epstein driven by the establishment. However, once elected, he changed the narrative, refusing to release documents

This has led to the first signs of a split between Trump and his Maga-base, with the president calling them “weaklings” for falling for what he called a “radical left” hoax by the opposition to discredit him. “I don’t want their support anymore!” he wrote. Some responded by burning their Maga caps in protest.

 

‘Trump has something to hide, and his comment to New York magazine in 2002 appears to support this’

 

Maga supporters responded saying: “I feel so betrayed and so angry”. This is not what I voted for.” “This cemented permanent deep state power.” “I’m concerned about being able to trust Donald Trump to keep his word.” “What about justice for these young ladies who were trafficked? What about their justice? Don’t they deserve justice?”

Of course, behind all of this is the suspicion that Trump has something to hide, and his comment to New York magazine in 2002 appears to support this: “I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”

Trump is now suing The Wall Street Journal and its proprietor, Rupert Murdoch, over their coverage of the saga.

Murdoch has a habit of supporting the winning side in politics; I wonder if the knows something we don’t?

 

“People think I’m insane Because I am frowning all the time”

‘This week’s piece really could, perhaps should, have been entitled “Disillusioned”.

That the country is broken is no longer a debate point. That the Tories broke it is open to discussion, but having been in-power for much of the last 45-yrs there is a strong case to say they have.

Starmer’s vision of “change” seems to be based on sitting quietly on the sidelines, an extension of the method that saw him win power. The issue with this strategy is that he doesn’t seem to have appreciated that Labour didn’t win, the Tories lost.

There is a school of thought that suggests voters prefer chaos to calm. Research by the Royal Society, for example, showed that 20% of UK voters express some desire for disruption and chaos, either as a necessary step to rebuild the country anew, or out of a hard-right form of nihilism.

This aside, Starmer looks increasingly vulnerable, not only from a disappointed electorate, but also from his own MPs.

Labour is, or at least was, the party of the left; redistribution of wealth, the welfare state, tolerance of “minorities”, etc.. Under Stamer it is none of these. What he is making the party is popular with no one; his MPs appreciate that benefits cuts aren’t popular with the electorate, and becoming Reformlite only endorses Reform.

Trump may be a bad comparison, but at least he is doing what he said he would, whereas, as my analysis highlights, Starmer is doing everything but.

The cost of Trump’s tariffs are starting to show on the US economy and businesses, which only serves to endorse my theory that the level of stock markets are artificially high, and bear no resemblance to economic reality.

The black swan event for Trump could well prove to be Jeremy Epstein. Trump might hold his Maga electoral base in contempt, but without them he’s nothing.

Musically, this week was all about the death of Ozzy Osborne. Sabbath was never my thing, but they had some tunes, we open with “Paranoid” in tribute to Ozzy who seemed like a nice guy, a threat to no one but himself. we close with the Stranglers “Grip”.

Both of which are very fitting for the PM, he seems trapped in a state of paranoia, and really needs to get  a grip.

Enjoy, it’s summer!

Philip.’

 

@coldwarsteve

 

 

 

 

 

Philip Gilbert is a city-based corporate financier, and former investment banker.

Philip is a great believer in meritocracy, and in the belief that if you want something enough you can make it happen. These beliefs were formed in his formative years, of the late 1970s and 80s

Click on the link to see all Brexit Bulletins: