Jean-Claude Juncker was a Marmite politician—you either admired his blunt honesty or detested his arrogance. The former EU Commission president had an affinity for strong drinks, a condescending attitude towards his contemporaries, and a habit of provoking British Brexiteers. Yet, amid his flaws, he possessed an uncanny ability for candid political insight.
One of his most memorable lines came during a heated debate on bailing out Greece’s crumbling economy. Juncker remarked: “We all know what to do, but we don’t know how to get re-elected once we have done it.” This simple observation captures the eternal dilemma of politicians: they are often acutely aware of the tough decisions needed but are paralysed by the fear of electoral repercussions.
It is this very dilemma that now entraps Sir Keir Starmer’s government. Before last year’s general election, Labour assured the British public that they would neither impose spending cuts nor raise major taxes. These were firm promises, not vague aspirations. Yet today, in her Spring Statement, Rachel Reeves has had to renege on both. She blamed “increased global uncertainty” for the £50 billion of additional revenue she must generate through tax hikes and spending reductions.
But here’s the problem: nothing has significantly changed. The economic challenges Reeves now claims to be reacting to were entirely foreseeable long before Labour took office. Britain’s deficit has been ballooning for years, the military’s budget shortfall was flagged after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the benefits bill has been spiralling since Covid, and Donald Trump’s potential re-election—and his obsession with protectionist trade policies—has been evident for months.
Promises in tatters
As journalist Laura Kuenssberg aptly put it, these challenges were “visible from space”. Yet Labour’s manifesto contained no mention of raising National Insurance, slashing winter fuel payments for pensioners, halving international aid, cutting disability benefits, or imposing deep reductions on unprotected government departments.
The outcome? A government rapidly losing credibility, accused of deceiving the electorate just nine months into its term. Worse still, Labour’s broken promises will hit its own supporters hardest. The trust deficit between politicians and voters deepens, disenchantment grows, and—as history shows—the populists thrive.
Nigel Farage has long capitalised on betrayals by the political establishment. Labour’s U-turn plays directly into his hands, providing fresh ammunition for Reform UK. If Labour loses the upcoming Runcorn and Helsby by-election, it will be more evidence that voters are losing patience with the mainstream. The consequences could be even more profound—prompting politicians to shy away further from hard truths, fearing the next populist backlash.
More Read
The erosion of political courage
British politics was once built on the ability to confront hard realities. Churchill’s “blood, toil, tears and sweat” speech in 1940 exemplified leadership—offering no easy answers, only the truth. Yet today, the landscape has changed. Politicians seem too scared to admit when times are tough, and perhaps, voters are too reluctant to hear it.
The financial crash of 2008 left living standards stagnant, and in the age of social media, public discourse has become more aggressive and polarised. Any difficult political decision is instantly attacked from all sides, leaving leaders paralysed.
But is it just our leaders’ fault? Or have we, as voters, become complicit in demanding fantasy economics—expecting more government spending while resisting higher taxes? If politicians appear spineless, it is partly because we have incentivised them to be.
Where do we go from here?
The worst kind of political commentary highlights a problem without offering a solution. The truth is, reversing this erosion of honesty in politics is no simple task. The rise of populism, the volatility of the electorate, and the relentless scrutiny of 24-hour news cycles all make it increasingly difficult for leaders to chart a bold course.
Yet, the answer must lie in leadership—true leadership. Not the timid, poll-driven governance we see today, but the kind that stands firm in the face of backlash, that articulates a vision and has the courage to see it through.
It is difficult, no doubt. But if a Prime Minister with the second-largest majority in a century cannot seize the moment, then who can?
