Connect with us

News

Keir Starmer’s difficult choices

Published

on

Keir Starmer’s difficult choices

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Sir Keir Starmer has won a huge parliamentary majority on strikingly thin support. Labour won only 34 per cent of the vote. The shift in support for the Conservatives since its big victory in 2019 also underlines the electorate’s extreme fickleness.

Perhaps most disturbing, a new report, Damaged Politics? from the National Centre for Social Research, argues that “Trust and confidence in governments are as low as they have ever been.” The details are sobering: “45 per cent would ‘almost never’ trust British governments of any party to place the needs of the nation above the interests of their own political party”; “58 per cent would ‘almost never’ trust politicians of any party in Britain to tell the truth when they are in a tight corner”; and 71 per cent think the economy is worse off because of Brexit, the flagship policy of the Tory government.

You are seeing a snapshot of an interactive graphic. This is most likely due to being offline or JavaScript being disabled in your browser.

Advertisement

The challenge for Labour is not just to govern well, but also to restore trust in doing so. If it fails to do both, there has to be a good chance that it will be swept out of power next time. When trust in respectable policy and conventional politics collapses a large proportion of the electorate will embrace promises from mendacious demagogues. Yet the dangers of that form of politics have been perfectly revealed in the fate of the last government.

Thus, curtailing trade with the UK’s closest neighbour and biggest market could never have made it richer. An interesting recent paper, “Levelling Up by Levelling Down”, reaches three sobering conclusions: first, the overall output losses of Brexit (relative to a synthetic counterfactual) are at least 5 percentage points of GDP; second, Brexit did reduce regional inequality, but did so by “levelling down” — that is, damaging — prosperous regions more than less prosperous ones; and, third, support for right-wing populist parties rose in regions that experienced Brexit-related output losses. Thus, the losses caused by populist lies can benefit the politicians who propound them.

Column chart of Perceptions of how well democracy works in Britain (%) showing The proportion of people who think democracy works poorly has jumped

Yet this has not helped the Conservatives, because they cannot play the populist card as well as a Nigel Farage can. They also need the support of people who expect a governing party to show decency, sobriety, seriousness, reliability and competence.

Now comes Starmer. The big question is whether he can restore trust by delivering results, the only way likely to work in the long run. He has gained power not only because of the evident failures of the previous government, but also because of the exceptionally poor performance of the economy since the 2007-09 financial crisis, followed by the losses caused by Brexit, the pandemic and the “cost of living crisis”. The Conservatives had no answer to the former and were battered brutally by the latter three.

Starmer’s challenge, and that of his chancellor Rachel Reeves, is quite simple: he has promised to make things better while also changing very little. This caution was self-evidently excessive and will now make it far harder to govern.

One immediate problem caused by such caution arises from the imperative to improve public services, especially the National Health Service and local government. How will this be possible in an idling economy without borrowing more or raising more than a trivial amount in extra taxes? Yes, Labour might be lucky. Maybe the passing of all the recent shocks and the appearance of a stable government will be enough to reignite growth. But what if it is not?

Advertisement
Column chart of Perceived impact of leaving the EU on the economy (%) showing The great majority are now unhappy with the economic results of Brexit

My colleague, Robert Shrimsley, has argued that this may be the last chance for “centrism” in the UK. Alternatively, it might be the last chance for any government that tries to deliver results, rather than just channel anger. This government then must actually deliver those results.

As former Bank of England chief economist Andy Haldane argues, they will need to take some bold steps. I would stress coming much closer to the EU, radically liberalising planning, relaxing regulations, supporting innovation, decentralising power, reforming taxation, strengthening the pension system, enabling life-long learning, rationalising immigration, and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of public services and administration. They are also going to have to raise taxes, including by reforming the taxation of land and replacing fuel duty with a tax on emissions of greenhouse gases.

The difficulty is that none of this will be easy and parts of it have been ruled out in advance. But breaking promises would further worsen the lack of trust they have inherited. This then is the trap that past failures and Labour’s promises have created. It is of huge importance that Starmer finds a way out of it.

martin.wolf@ft.com

Follow Martin Wolf with myFT and on Twitter

Advertisement

News

Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy loses in Republican primary, does not advance to runoff

Published

on

Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy loses in Republican primary, does not advance to runoff

One observer of the current Senate race in Louisiana noted that Sen. Bill Cassidy could lose his reelection bid.

Annie Flanagan for NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Annie Flanagan for NPR

Sen. Bill Cassidy lost Saturday’s Louisiana Republican primary according to a race call by the Associated Press.

Cassidy, who served two terms in the Senate, was one of seven Republican senators who voted to convict President Trump after the January 6th insurrection at the Capitol. That vote put him at odds with Trump and his MAGA coalition, ultimately leading Trump to push Rep. Julia Letlow to run against Cassidy.

Cassidy’s bid for a third term was viewed as a test of Trump’s grip on the party–and of what voters want from their representatives in Washington. The primary pitted Cassidy, a veteran lawmaker, former physician and chair of the powerful Senate health committee, against Letlow, a political newcomer and a millennial MAGA loyalist.

Advertisement
A detailed view of a hat that reads, Run Julia Run, is seen at a campaign event for Rep. Julia Letlow (R-LA) on May 6, 2026 in Franklinton, Louisiana.

A detailed view of a hat that reads, Run Julia Run, is seen at a campaign event for Rep. Julia Letlow (R-LA) on May 6, 2026 in Franklinton, Louisiana.

Tyler Kaufman/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Tyler Kaufman/Getty Images

Advertisement

A former college administrator, Letlow won a special election in 2021 for the House seat her late husband, Luke, was set to assume before he died from COVID in 2020.

In Congress, Letlow sponsored a bill to collect oral histories from the pandemic and has focused on education and children. She introduced the “Parents Bill of Rights Act,” which would allow parents to review classroom materials like library books and require schools to notify parents if their child requests different pronouns, locker rooms or sports teams.

She also serves on the powerful appropriations committee and has embraced Trump’s agenda.

Advertisement

Letlow, who came first in Saturday’s primary, will face Louisiana state Treasurer John Fleming in the runoff on June 27. Cassidy came in third.

The election result is a victory for President Trump who has put Republican loyalty to the test on the ballot so far this year in Indiana state senate primaries and in Cassidy’s race.

Another major test of Trump’s influence comes in Kentucky’s primary on Tuesday when Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, who has found himself at odds with the president, faces a challenger endorsed by Trump.

Continue Reading

News

Brass bands in Beijing make way for sticker shock at home as Trump returns to escalating inflation

Published

on

Brass bands in Beijing make way for sticker shock at home as Trump returns to escalating inflation

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump returned from the spectacle of a Chinese state visit to a less than welcoming U.S. economy — with the military band and garden tour in Beijing giving way to pressure over how to fix America’s escalating inflation rate.

Consumer inflation in the United States increased to 3.8% annually in April, higher than what he inherited as the Iran war and the Republican president’s own tariffs have pushed up prices. Inflation is now outpacing wage gains and effectively making workers poorer. The Cleveland Federal Reserve estimates that annual inflation could reach 4.2% in May as the war has kept oil and gasoline prices high.

Trump’s time with Chinese leader Xi Jinping appears unlikely to help the U.S. economy much, despite Trump’s claims of coming trade deals. The trip occurred as many people are voting in primaries leading into the November general election while having to absorb the rising costs of gasoline, groceries, utility bills, jewelry, women’s clothing, airplane tickets and delivery services. Democrats see the moment as a political opportunity.

“He’s returning to a dumpster fire,” said Lindsay Owens, executive director of Groundwork Collaborative, a liberal think tank focused on economic issues. “The president will not have the faith and confidence of the American people — the economy is their top issue and the president is saying, ‘You’re on your own.’”

The president’s trip to Beijing and his recent comments that indicated a tone-deafness to voters’ concerns about rising prices have suggested his focus is not on the American public and have undermined Republicans who had intended to campaign on last year’s tax cuts as helping families.

Advertisement

Trump described the trip as a victory, saying on social media that Xi “congratulated me on so many tremendous successes,” as the U.S. president has praised their relationship.

Trump told reporters that Boeing would be selling 200 aircraft — and maybe even 750 “if they do a good job” — to the Chinese. He said American farmers would be “very happy” because China would be “buying billions of dollars of soybeans.”

“We had an amazing time,” Trump said as he flew home on Air Force One, and told Fox News’ Bret Baier in an interview that gasoline prices were just some “short-term pain” and would “drop like a rock” once the war ends.

Inflationary pain is not a factor in how Trump handles Iran

Trump departed from the White House for China by saying the negotiations over the Iran war depended on stopping Tehran from developing nuclear weapons. “I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation. I don’t think about anybody. I think about one thing: We cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon,” Trump said.

That remark prompted blowback because it suggested to some that Trump cared more about challenging Iran than fighting inflation at home. Trump defended his words, telling Fox News: “That’s a perfect statement. I’d make it again.”

Advertisement

The White House has since stressed that Trump is focused on inflation.

Asked later about the president’s words, Vice President JD Vance said there had been a “misrepresentation” of the remarks. White House spokesman Kush Desai said the “administration remains laser-focused on delivering growth and affordability on the homefront” while indicating actions would be taken on grocery prices.

But as Trump appeared alongside Xi, new reports back home showed inflation rising for businesses and interest rates climbing on U.S. government debt.

His comments that Boeing would sell 200 jets to China caused the company’s stock price to fall because investors had expected a larger number. There was little concrete information offered about any trade agreements reached during the summit, including Chinese purchases of U.S. exports such as liquefied natural gas and beef.

“Foreign policy wins can matter politically, but only if voters feel stability and affordability in their daily lives,” said Brittany Martinez, a former Republican congressional aide who is the executive director of Principles First, a center-right advocacy group focused on democracy issues.

Advertisement

“Midterms are almost always a referendum on cost of living and public frustration, and Republicans are not immune from the same inflation and affordability pressures that hurt Democrats in recent cycles,” she added.

Democrats see Trump as vulnerable

Democratic lawmakers are seizing on Trump’s comments before his trip as proof of his indifference to lowering costs. There is potential staying power of his remarks as Americans head into Memorial Day weekend facing rising prices for the hamburgers and hot dogs to be grilled.

“What Americans do not see is any sympathy, any support, or any plan from Trump and congressional Republicans to lower costs – in fact, they see the opposite,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Thursday.

Vance faulted the Biden administration for the inflation problem even though the inflation rate is now higher than it was when Trump returned to the White House in January 2025 with a specific mandate to fix it.

“The inflation number last month was not great,” Vance said Wednesday, but he then stressed, “We’re not seeing anything like what we saw under the Biden administration.”

Advertisement

Inflation peaked at 9.1% in June 2022 under Biden, a Democrat. By the time Trump took the oath of office, it was a far more modest 3%.

Trump’s inflation challenge could get harder

The data tells a different story as higher inflation is spreading into the cost of servicing the national debt.

Over the past week, the interest rate charged on 10-year U.S. government debt jumped from 4.36% to 4.6%, an increase that implies higher costs for auto loans and mortgages.

“My fear is that the layers of supply shocks that are affecting the U.S. economy will only further feed into inflationary pressures,” said Gregory Daco, chief economist at EY-Parthenon.

Daco noted that last year’s tariff increases were now translating into higher clothing prices. With the Supreme Court ruling against Trump’s ability to impose tariffs by declaring an economic emergency, his administration is preparing a new set of import taxes for this summer.

Advertisement

Daco stressed that there have been a series of supply shocks. First, tariffs cut into the supply of imports. In addition, Trump’s immigration crackdown cut into the supply of foreign-born workers. Now, the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz has cut off the vital waterway used to ship 20% of global oil supplies.

“We’re seeing an erosion of growth,” Daco said.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Top Drug Regulator Is Fired From the F.D.A.

Published

on

Top Drug Regulator Is Fired From the F.D.A.

Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg, the Food and Drug Administration’s top drug regulator, said she was fired from the agency Friday after she declined to resign.

She said she did not know who had ordered her firing or why, nor whether Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. knew of her fate. The Department of Health and Human Services did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The departure reflected the upheaval at the F.D.A., days after the resignation of Dr. Marty Makary, the agency commissioner. Dr. Makary had become a lightning rod for critics of the agency’s decisions to reject applications for rare disease drugs and to delay a report meant to supply damaging evidence about the abortion drug mifepristone. He also spent months before his departure pushing back on the White House’s requests for him to approve more flavored vapes, the reason he ultimately cited for leaving.

Dr. Hoeg’s hiring had startled public health leaders who were familiar with her track record as a vaccine skeptic, and she played a leading role in some of the agency’s most divisive efforts during her tenure. She worked on a report that purportedly linked the deaths of children and young adults to Covid vaccines, a dossier the agency has not released publicly. She was also the co-author of a document describing Mr. Kennedy’s decision to pare the recommendations for 17 childhood vaccines down to 11.

But in an interview on Friday, Dr. Hoeg said she “stuck with the science.”

Advertisement

“I am incredibly proud of the work we were doing,” Dr. Hoeg said, adding, “I’m glad that we didn’t give in to any pressures to approve drugs when it wasn’t appropriate.”

As the director of the agency’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, she was a political appointee in a role that had been previously occupied by career officials. An epidemiologist who was trained in the United States and Denmark, she worked on efforts to analyze drug safety and on a panel to discuss the use of serotonin reuptake inhibitors, the most widely prescribed class of antidepressants, during pregnancy. She also worked on efforts to reduce animal testing and was the agency’s liaison to an influential vaccine committee.

She made sure that her teams approved drugs only when the risk-benefit balance was favorable, she said.

The firing worsens the leadership vacuum at the F.D.A. and other agencies, with temporary leaders filling the role of commissioner, food chief and the head of the biologics center, which oversees vaccines and gene therapies. The roles of surgeon general and director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are also unfilled.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending