The one constant in Labour’s search for a governing strategy has been the idea of “security”. For Morgan McSweeney, Keir Starmer’s powerful chief of staff, what most voters want from government is security for their homes and communities—rather than the more ideological policies demanded by party members.
For the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, the other key player on domestic policy, security justifies a more active state, whether through increasing workers’ rights or industrial strategy. She even coined the horrendous portmanteau “securonomics” in the run up to the election, though thankfully that doesn’t appear to be in use anymore.
It’s a strategy that fits with the times. As the Trump administration undermines European security, both militarily and economically, there is a need for our government to do more. In the years ahead, there will be extra investment in defence, probably more than has been promised so far, and more focus on protecting critical supply chains.
Plus it’s a line Starmer can pull off. His disappointed geography teacher vibe doesn’t suit populism, nor does he have the charisma for Blair-style mid-1990s sunny optimism. But he can, at a pinch, do serious man for serious times. Given the lack of seriousness in Reform’s ranks or in Kemi Badenoch’s speeches, this could work politically, as well as providing some coherence to the policy agenda.
There’s only one problem: if you’re going to make security your selling point, then you have to provide it. This doesn’t fit well with an insistence on deep cuts to public spending. So far, as available polling indicates, the Labour policy people are most likely to be aware of is cutting the winter fuel allowance, which was done to convince bond traders that Reeves was serious about prudent financial management, but has been a political disaster.
The move affected around nine million pensioners, though not the poorest, and they will only lose a few hundred pounds a year each. The reforms to disability benefits put forward last month by the work and pensions secretary, Liz Kendall, are on a completely different scale.
Most of the proposed savings—around £5bn—come from restricting access to the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) designed to help disabled people meet the additional costs of their condition. According to the Resolution Foundation, this could mean around one million people losing between £4,200 and £6,300 a year by 2030. And this policy is the opposite of means-tested: those affected will be heavily clustered at the bottom of the income distribution.
It’s not just those who end up losing out that will feel less secure. Just under four million people currently receive PIP, and for a large majority their current award is for a fixed term of less than five years. Meanwhile, 80 per cent of recent claims have been awarded for less than two years. That means millions more people feeling deeply concerned about their financial future, even if they ultimately are able to keep their PIP. Of course, it’s not just the individuals involved affected but also their family members. Ultimately, it will have some impact on almost as many people as the winter fuel allowance cut but with far more serious consequences.
It’s true that voters are open to arguments about benefits cuts. Polling shows that there is still a widespread belief that many people on welfare don’t need or deserve it and that it’s an area where savings could be made. But, when asked questions like this, people tend to imagine healthy young people scrounging, not disabled people. Just 10 per cent of respondents told YouGov that the benefits system helps those with disabilities too much, and 45 per cent said there wasn’t enough support for this group.
Government briefing has pushed the dubious argument that most of those who will lose out are making claims for mental illnesses and don’t really need the support. Even if you buy this, it will affect many with physical issues too. The stories that emerge are unlikely to make it look like we have ministers intent on improving peoples’ sense of security.
And all this is before we get to the spending review later this year, which promises substantial cuts in most departmental budgets. The government will do its best to suggest these will be achieved through “efficiencies” and “reform”, but in reality it will mean further deterioration in services.
Due to the need to increase health and defence spending, the areas hit hardest will be those, like the justice system and local government, that were battered during the last round of austerity. It’s hard to believe that our dysfunctional courts systems and overfull prisons can be fixed with falling spending, or that we won’t see more local authorities ending up bankrupt. If key services are no longer available that will also leave people feeling less secure.
Security worked as a frame for Labour during the election precisely because so many felt insecure under the Tories. This was partly due to Liz Truss’s economic policies, but mostly to a widespread sense of decline in the quality of public services. Without changing its fiscal policy, and freeing itself of self-imposed constraints on taxation, Labour will find itself in the same place in four years’ time. It may be the insecurity of MPs in their electoral position that eventually forces a change in approach.
