Personal Blogs

Ask the man on the Clapham omnibus what he thinks about politicians and more often than not his answer will at some point include a variation of 'they are all liars'

YouGov data from 2024, an election year, showed that of all professions only those who run pressure groups were more distrusted than Members of Parliament (although the response is a little different members of the public are asked about their own MP). In that survey just 18% of respondents had some degree of trust in MPs, only 1% of respondents would qualify that as 'a great deal of trust'.

Compare that to 66% overall trust in academics, 73% teachers, 82% scientists and 83% family doctors and you can see the perilous state that democracy is in.

So, when Labour were elected to power last year a narrative of untrustworthiness was never likely to be far away. It wasn't helped when some dancing on the head of pin allowed the party to qualify the increase to employer's contributions for National Insurance as not being 'a tax on working people'.

It didn't help with hastily announced changes to winter fuel allowance and personal independence payment policy, and their botched u-turns. It didn't even help as Government brought forward its timetable for adding VAT onto independent school fees with the one it had arguably implied that it would introduce prior to the election.

One significant contributing factor to the Government's unprecedentedly poor favourability ratings could be argued to be its lack of trustworthiness.

It is therefore potentially fatal that despite regular questioning at party conference this week that Labour appear to be equivocating on their most prominent pre-election pledge not to introduce new taxes on 'working people'. Prior to the election they qualified those taxes as income tax, national insurance and VAT.

When asked on the radio this morning whether she stands by her statement last year not to come back for more borrowing or more tax rises Pippa Crerar, Political Editor at The Guardian, posts Chancellor Rachel Reeves as responding "I think everyone can see the world has changed in the last year and we are not immune to that."

Elsewhere on yesterday's morning media round the Prime Minister was challenged several times on the VAT aspect of his pre-election pledge only to equivocate.

The Chancellor is right, the world has changed in the past year, but the party's promises at that time didn't make that caveat, they were clear.

Any change now only contributes to the impression of dishonesty. They knew things had the potential to change, but they still made they promise.

It is, perhaps, the hoariest of all political cliches but President George H W Bush felt the distaste on the American people after going back on his 1988 promise "Read my lips, no new taxes", albeit other factors had a material effect on the result of the subsequent 1992 election too.

But that example should highlight the impact that misleading the public can have on the future of a politician.

Labour should be very, very careful indeed about u-turning on their most prominent pre-election pledge. At a time when they are languishing in the polls they may find they have not hit rock bottom yet.

In their report 'Strong and Stable' the think tank Make Votes Matter, an organisation promoting a proportionally representative electoral system, note that in the parliamentary term following the 2019 general election the average period of time a newly appointed cabinet minister spent in office was just eight months.

Whilst that figure was undoubtedly impacted and made lower by mass resignations and two changes of Prime Minister it is nevertheless eye-catching. An average eight months tenure points to turmoil, it points to a government running out of both ideas and talent, it suggests an administration more intent on fighting internal battles than serving the public.

8 months also happens to be an historically low figure too. According to Make Votes Matter 'ministers appointed between the 1970s and 2005 generally remained in one office for between two and three years.' Indeed the United Kingdom was already at the lower end amongst comparable countries when it comes to ministerial tenure. Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany all average a length of term around three years in office, Switzerland over six.

At this year's general election one of the principle selling points of the Labour Party was that they would bring stability and, yes, decency back to a broken political system. Even if he never claimed it publicly Sir Keir Starmer made a virtue of his moral superiority.

In less than 100 days however, that fabled milestone for all viewers of The West Wing, we have seen a spate of entirely appropriate questions on the acceptance of gifts, we have witnessed first hand the Prime Minister's disdain at having his decisions scrutinised, and now, in the wake of his Chief of Staff, Sue Gray's enforced resignation, the final component of competence is rightly being reviewed.

Of course, Ms Gray, is not a minister. In many respects as Chief of Staff for the Prime Minister she was even more important. The nature and timing of her appointment, in most people's eyes, already looked a little shady.

But sacking her after 93 days? A fraction of the time most ministers are in office? That brings the Prime Minister's judgement into question more than anything than has gone before.