IN politics, there are two sorts of issues — those that matter and those that “cut through.”

The latter are those which seize the popular imagination and shape perceptions of parties, politicians and governments.

Sometimes, the two categories overlap — as in the Palestine solidarity movement, for example. Other times, they dwell in separate political universes.

One hundred days into Starmer’s government, two issues have cut through and exercised public opinion. Neither are to the Prime Minister’s advantage.

And there have been two developments which don’t necessarily impact on the public attention, but which are consequential. They are not helpful to him either.

To the “cut-through” questions first:

One is his wardrobe arrangements and that of his senior lieutenants, a display of self-entitled grifting that has landed very badly with voters wearied by Johnsonian sleaze.

And the second is the axing of winter fuel payments for pensioners, which has aroused a sort of bemused disappointment because it is not the sort of thing the average person expects a Labour government to be doing.

That was bound to resonate as an issue because it affects so many people.

Each of these issues would have been bad political news in isolation. In juxtaposition, they have defined Starmer in the worst possible way.

The original “100 days” referred to Napoleon’s abortive comeback in 1815. And latest polling figures, showing Labour down to 27 per cent, level with the Tories and just a few points ahead of Reform UK, indicate that the Prime Minister may need to be packing for St Helena before long.

As the article by Joe Gill this week outlined, polling figures are supported by local by-election results, which show Labour losing votes in every possible direction in England at least, within their first hundred days.

Yet the first of these two issues, the frocks-and-freebies scandal, does not really matter very much. The fuel benefit cut clearly does to many people, but it is only decisive if it sets the course for the years ahead.

Two more substantial issues offer pointers to that. The first is the trading in of Sue Gray as Downing Street Chief of Staff in favour of Morgan McSweeney.

That is not a “cut-through” issue — the public neither knows nor cares who does that particular job. But it has an outsize influence on the government’s conduct.

That is more than usually so because the world now has more than a sense that Keir Starmer is not very good at politics.

But is McSweeney the answer? Most of the media seem afraid to point out the obvious — there is nothing in his record which suggests he is qualified for a job which entails a lot of managing of the government machine.

His record as a campaign genius is not so much mixed as mediocre. He masterminded Liz Kendall’s 4.5 per cent of the vote in Labour’s 2015 leadership election, and secured a drop in Labour’s vote between 2019’s poor result and 2024’s “triumph.”

He has, however, been undoubtedly effective in smashing the Corbyn-era left in Labour and scattering it to the winds, along with the enthusiasm it generated.

Now, when people find something that they are good at, there is a natural tendency to keep doing it, whatever it is you are actually supposed to be working on.

So it is at best unproven that McSweeney will lead to an improvement in the government’s delivery, but more than likely, he will continue to seek to keep Labour’s remaining left on a regime of gruel and punishment beatings while focusing on appeasing the rather small number of Tory voters he won to Starmer’s side on July 4.

Thus, his appointment speaks to a further strengthening of the hard-right hegemony in Labour, something Sue Gray did occasionally try to mitigate.

She helped block McSweeney’s effort to drive Diane Abbott out of Parliament, for example. The seven Labour MPs suspended for challenging child poverty now have less of a chance of getting the whip back in all likelihood.

The second issue of substance with limited public resonance has been the spat over DP World, pitching the Cabinet’s social democrats against its neoliberals. This is even more significant and, again, it seems like the worse side has come out on top, at least on points.

The immediate sacking of 800 seafarers by DP World’s P&O subsidiary and their replacement by much lower-paid overseas crew was such a scandal that the company even managed to breach Tory-era union laws, for which it went unpunished. Parliament was briefly united in condemnation of management’s behaviour.

So deputy premier Angela Rayner and Transport Secretary Louise Haigh were only restating orthodoxy by criticising the corporation when launching Labour’s workers’ rights legislation last week.

Alas, this ran slap into Starmer’s investment summit scheduled for this week, with the red carpet being rolled out for sundry bourgeois from across the globe.

DP World threw a hissy fit and threatened to pull out of not just the summit but also a major investment into the London Gateway port they own.

So rather than telling DP World to do one, Cabinet running dogs Jonathan Reynolds and Peter Kyle were sent out to slap down Haigh in particular. DP World has “changed,” we were told, which seems to be entirely untrue.

And Starmer himself rushed to reassure business, pledging that he would slash regulation to make Britain a happy hunting ground for those seeking maximum returns in the shortest time — capitalists, in a word.

It could be 2010 — David Cameron and George Osborne all over again. That deregulated road led to the Grenfell corporate crime, among other things.

And the rush to appease DP World by senior ministers can only encourage the worst employers to look for every possible loophole in Labour’s new employment law — there are, let’s face it, not a few, as Sharon Graham has pointed out.

Perhaps this won’t “cut through” either — until it does. Napoleon said that “a leader is a dealer in hope,” which leaves us pretty much leaderless.

But his most famous injunction was, “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” Perhaps the labour movement should make an exception right now. Starmer is our enemy, and the mistakes accumulate, but it is surely not too early for a working-class interruption.

The end of the empire perhaps, but not British imperialism

THE sun never set on the British empire because God didn’t trust the British in the dark, it was said.

Only now it does. The surrendering of sovereignty over the Chagos Islands means that there are at least a few hours each day in which the sun does not shine on a Union flag flying over a patch of somebody else’s earth.

Of course, it was also observed that the blood never dried in that sun-kissed empire. Some things don’t change fast enough, and British imperialism’s record on that score this century, down to enabling Israel’s Gaza genocide, would make the Victorian empire-builders proud.

So, the Almighty might still do well to invest in some night-vision goggles.

Right-wing nutters: Tories spoiled for choice

KEMI BADENOCH: Migrants hate Israel. Slash maternity pay. Minimum wage is a problem. Autistic children are being coddled. Jail 10 per cent of civil servants.
 
Robert Jenrick: No cartoons in children’s refugee centres. Finesse illegal planning deals for ex-porn entrepreneurs. Troops kill surrendered “terrorists.” Ban saying “Allahu Akbar” publicly. Put the Israeli flag at all UK border crossings.

Can you find it in your heart to pity the poor Tory Party member? Once it was so simple come the Conservatives’ not-infrequent leadership elections — just vote for the craziest right-winger. Now, what are they to do?