Will the UKS iron chancellor melt under the heat?

(Bloomberg -Opinion) – When does a tactical retreat become a route? Keir Starmer performed his largest U-turn in government on Thursday by promising the pensioners’ winter fuel allowance (WFA), which he cut last July. The Prime Minister went in after becoming a Backbench MPs of the Labor Members of the Labor – and the measure became totally of many that the voters did not like a government, and now weakened in the polls behind the British Party’s populist reform. The prime minister can only be soldier. No one, not even more deteriorate, who makes himself proud of his ‘pragmatism’, knows what his leading light is on the economy. As a former lawyer with a strong record of human rights, his hand can be traced into the liberal prison reforms and reverence for international courts; Otherwise, he looks most at home with his assignment for international affairs. A number of economic advisers in Downing have stopped without explanation over the past two weeks. They also seem to be the wiser about the economic philosophy of their boss – or are subject to it. Starmer has a history of tackling with the prevailing wind, but the threat to Chancellor of Treasury Rachel Reeves’ credibility of the winter fuel climb is greater than other flip flops. It is not uncommon for chancellors to be forced to make a screaming U-turn after a measure of tax increase ends up badly. However, Reeves sold last July’s cut to the “WFA” as an essential sacrifice for winning the confidence of financial markets, which is more suspicious of the fiscal incontinence of labor. It was an early, self-imposed test of discipline to combat loans-which the self-stiled “iron chancellor” has now fled. The amount at issue is £ 1.4bn ($ 1.9 billion), a modest amount according to treasury calculations. But the cost is really for the credibility of the chancellor. It also embraced her own and the communications hood of the prime minister to deny reports that the chancellor would change course – until the day she did. A perception of unreliability begins to begin in the vicinity of the Starmer government, which feeds a feeling of nervousness. There could be good reason for this: Three weeks away from her public expenditure review, the official figures of April showed that the government was spending £ 6.6 billion more than a year earlier. Despite a tax increase budget last fall, the salary increases of the public sector and spending on benefits have overtaken the increase in receipts. Over the past 12 months, loans have increased by £ 11 billion more than the budget responsibility office, the guardian of her fiscal rules, predicted. The substantial cost of maintaining the debt – often highlighted by labor in opposition – is frightened as international markets of the Trump administration’s abuse. The chancellor’s climb will not end the episode. Any pensioners who benefit from the U -turn must wait a year to reinstate payments. And the problem with promising reversal is that it stimulates appetite for other resorts: Pressure is also rising on starter and Reeves to turn the proposed welfare cuts. More than 170 MPs for labor, enough to reverse the government of the government’s home of Commons, indicated that they had enough and made it clear in a wave of letters to the Chief Whip – and in a testimony meeting last week with the Premier himself. Reeves now also have to guard her flanks against two shadow chancellors. Unfortunately for her, both in her own party – Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner and Gordon Brown, a former laborer of the labor and a prolonged chancellor (later prime minister) – and once a role model for Reeves as an aspiring politician. Rayner is the darling of the Labor Party and has the authority of her mandate as directly elected deputy leader, while most of her colleagues owe their status to the grills of the prime minister. Her back story-she left school pregnant at 16 to make her away in the world of trade union politics and fought her away through the man-o-spheres to the top table of her party. This means that she had both deep union support and a solid base under ‘soft left -wing’ MPs that were upset by Starmer and Reeves’ apparent repentance until austerity, which many of them regard as a Tory crime. What, do they argue now, was the point of electing a labor government if it takes away money from pensioners and the disabled? A series of newspaper leaks reveals the deputy leader who argues with the chancellor for eight new taxes on better to avoid cutting in public expenses. And in appealing to the voters of the working class lost to reform, Rayner also suggests cutting your welfare payments for foreigners. These are daring ideas and had to be excelled in opposition with the advantages (and many disadvantages of labor’s overall positioning). But to make them come under pressure with the chancellor to set up her sums, it feels like a nose thumb. Yet economic reality cannot be blown away with a magic wand or your turn. Without reform of benefits, public spending cannot be controlled. As welfare secretary Liz Kendall acknowledged in an interview this week “There are now 1,000 new awards for personal independence every day.” Meanwhile, public sector unions are threatening to discontinue their annual awards, even if it is more than inflation and the government’s strategy was to seal industrial dissatisfaction with early transactions to take office. Reeves have three courses: to reduce expenses or reduce taxes in the fall or bring out sticky choices in the hope that something will come up with, to cut this mess of peevishness, jobling and justified criticism. The markets certainly prefer a combination of the first two options. Most LPs of Labor naturally prefer a combination of second and thirds. We will discover what material the chancellor exists- the price of giving too much is that the mantle of the “iron” chancellor melts. She had to make room for winter fuel. But Reeves will have to move quickly to make it clear that this U-turn is an exception, not a rule. More from Bloomberg opinion: This column reflects the author’s personal views and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial or Bloomberg MP and his owners. Martin Ivens is the editor of The Times Literary Supplement. Previously, he was editor of the Sunday Times of London and his main political commentator. More stories like these are available on Bloomberg.com/opinion © 2025 Bloomberg LP