Why is Starmer so miserable? The PM’s pessimism is more than paradoxical, says MAGGIE PAGANO

Fortunately, Sir Keir Starmer is not a doctor.

His manner with patients is so somber—and his voice so mournful—that he could probably convince his patients to turn off their own life support equipment.

And judging by the less than rosy tone of his State of the Nation address at No 10 Rose Garden, it is entirely plausible that Starmer was telling the truth when he said during one of the pre-election debates that he would rather have his family members stand in long queues for the NHS than go to a private clinic.

What really astonishes Starmer is that he came to power only a few weeks ago with so much goodwill and an overwhelming majority. He is the one who should be cheering – he won after all.

It is customary for a new prime minister to blame the old guard for all the problems. But his prognosis and pessimism are not to be parodied.

Not only has he found an economic black hole – which is pure sophistry – but he has also found a ‘social black hole’.

And the PM managed to keep a straight face as he said this without mentioning the super high immigration that is putting so much pressure on public services and housing. You may disagree with Starmer’s diagnosis, but accept that the UK has problems.

There are far too many people considered economically inactive; productivity is low, particularly in the public sector; housing is expensive; there are poor transport links above the Watford Gap and there is an addiction to cheap labour, particularly in the NHS and care homes.

For example, why hasn’t the government increased the number of students allowed to study medicine in the UK every year?

What happened to the promises of change? Or perhaps a recognition that Britain isn’t doing so badly after all, given the extraordinary £400bn blow to the public finances from the cost of the Covid lockdown.

Or the global inflationary pressures that arose as central banks printed more money, and as energy costs rose due to Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Yet Starmer did not come up with a single positive idea or policy that could address any of these problems.

Starmer’s response, however, is to implement more of the same policies that the Conservative Party has been dishing out for the past decade.

That means more pain and higher taxes in October’s Halloween budget.

Starmer is sticking to his promise that taxes for ‘working people’ will not rise. So we can expect higher taxes on everything to do with wealth: inheritance tax, capital gains tax, pension cuts, savings and even council tax are all eligible.

But that higher taxes will not hit “working people” – and that’s most of us – is another fantasy of his, since taxes do not always fall on the person who pays them. Taxes on investments or corporations, for example, will also hit working people.

Interestingly, criticism of Starmer’s economic strategy has come not only from the Tories, but also from many economists and Labour supporters, and not just from those on the hard left.

They are equally upset that Starmer, with his Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, is taking us into a George Osborne Mark 2 period of austerity. It is hard to even lay a coin between Osborne and Reeves. The Prime Minister could so easily have shown a little optimism, recognising that the UK is reaching a turning point, which would boost confidence.

Starmer could have admitted that the country is growing again, that it is the fastest growing country in the G7 – much healthier than Germany, which is in recession, or France, which has no government.

Instead, he serves up a dish of cold revenge. Perhaps that’s his strategy.

Or perhaps he has no serious political back-country and Labour is yet another creation of the unions, which is why he has not demanded productivity improvements in exchange for higher wages.

Does he hope that the future will only look brighter by making the present look so terribly bad?

The problem with this strategy is that Starmer and Reeves lock themselves into a dangerous one-way street.

They will become so entrenched in their narrow ideology of high taxes and austerity that it will be difficult to change course.

And in doing so, they could destroy the very growth they promised.

Plus approx change.