When talking about "Titanic mode," there is a close contender in the form of the U.K. opposition. The ongoing leadership contest of the Conservatives in the U.K., including the surprise elimination of the best-qualified candidate by fellow members of Parliament in preliminary internal voting rounds, reveals the party’s deep conceptual divide.

Hence, pundits, and under normal political circumstances would probably argue that this makes for smooth sailing concerning Sir Keir Starmer’s newly elected Labour Party's absolute majority government. However, after his first 100 days in office, the reality on Number 10 Downing Street is totally different. Personal missteps – some recent, some in the past but coming to light only now – although "missteps" seems a word too lenient as "misconduct" appears a more appropriate choice of terminology, paired with rather obscure sets of policies have left the public bewildered including core Labour voters.

Labour’s 100 days in office

Britain is a northern European island nation with rough winter climates. Decades ago and under a different political atmosphere it was not uncommon to check in on elderly neighbors who were unable to properly heat their homes regardless of in the metropolis or countryside. Over time, things greatly improved, actually both under successive Labour and Conservative governments, respectively, as winter fuel payments were introduced back in 1997, targeting people who had reached the state pension age. But the global pandemic situation combined with constantly increasing living costs allowed for a saddening insight into many citizens' daily struggles – how to make ends meet regardless of receiving state benefits?

Now think of a newly elected socialist prime minister; what is one of his first announcements? We will scrap so-called Winter Fuel Payments beginning with this very winter 2024/2025. Some 11.6 million people in just over 8 million households had benefited from this much-needed subsidy last winter, setting back the government’s accounts by 2 billion pounds ($ 2.60 billion) with an average of 172 pounds paid out per person. Fully supported by the new chancellor of the exchequer – finance minister to you and me – Rachel Reeves argued that this new policy would save her administration 1.5 billion pounds annually. To complicate matters further, Starmer and Reeves stated that those citizens on a number of other welfare benefits could still receive winter fuel payments. Hence, applications for eligible status rose dramatically. This said, however, many of the poorest members of society will no longer receive this vital amount of up to a maximum of 300 pounds per winter. And if you desire continuous winter fuel payments, you must receive or apply for pension credit. Angry or confused? British pensioners certainly are both.

Then consider this: As socialists, you loathe certain segments of society, or don't you? The second mysterious policy-making announcement did not wait long and at stake, imposing a staggering 20% value-added tax on all forms of private education, from preschool to high school, with private universities perhaps in the mix as well. Britain has a long-standing tradition of private and state education, which run alongside each other. The major pull factor is that going private supposedly means better levels of education. However, going private often necessitates great efforts from the side of parents to cover the costs as this form of education is no longer reserved for millionaires but for aspiring middle-class members, too. An average primary school per year would set a family back around 8,000 pounds. Add 20% VAT and we arrive at 9 600 pounds. As these growing numbers of middle-class earners no longer qualify for any state benefits yet are not extremely well off either, chances are you send your children to a state school. Applications are so high already now as VAT kicks in from the beginning of 2025 onward that some state schools already plan to add additional classes. Needless to say, with the same number of teaching staff. Angry and confused? Middle-class parents are for sure (see comment about pensioners above).

Can both laws be reversed, eventually? Most definitely, if there is a political will. But will it actually be reversed? Anyone’s guess is as good as ours.

Are British voters amused?

Labour claims it inherited a budgetary black hole from the previous government in the region of 20 billion pounds but refuses to explain how and when. Hence, the plan is to increase taxes and cut spending. Foreign aid should see a 2 billion decline in available funds as another sad example.

Infighting is at a high level already. Here are comments by esteemed fellow journalists live from London "Foreign aid cut sparks Cabinet rebellion," Ben Riley-Smith. Or take Christian Calgie, "Angela Rayner ‘hopping mad’ over Labour investment meltdown days before major summit." One involves David Lammy, foreign secretary, up in verbal arms against the chancellor, and the other deputy prime minister, Angela Rayner, challenging Keir Starmer in no unmistakable terms.

Infighting after only 100 days in office, the honeymoon among government ministers, is already a thing of the past. Anger, confusion and distrust linger among wide segments of the British public – not a bad achievement even by moderately cynical standards. And if all this were not enough for Labour to worry about, there is the Starmer Factor. Enter Lord Waheed Alli, Labour’s key donor, as it seems.

First, flashback to the global health situation during which every politician, including then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson and then leader of the opposition Starmer, declared, "Let us stay home." Johnson’s office parties with secretaries using large items of luggage to go to the nearest supermarket and stock up on drinks for an illegal office party are widely documented. But now no longer in opposition but managing his government, Starmer was found to be broadcasting public messages from a home owned by Labour donor Lord Waheed Alli. Starmer decorated this place as if it were his own home, with family photos in the background. Are British voters amused? Not necessarily, as contact even with dying family members had been illegally forbidden as we now know; swapping flats outlawed, too, and by the way, how many ordinary voters own one in the first place?

Well, every political party needs a donor or two, and Alli, according to Neil Johnson in the Daily Telegraph, revealed that there were 23 hospitality functions paid for by Alli in the year running up to July’s elections. Freebies for favors? The fact is Lord Alli did indeed obtain a so-called Number 10 Downing Street exclusive entry pass. It has been returned since, but nevertheless. In the same piece, which is now widely confirmed, including certain admissions by the prime minister himself, although in a sense of ‘did I do something wrong,’ Alli provided Starmer with 32,000 pounds for clothing for himself and his wife, Victoria. Angela Rayner supposedly received a "work dress" from the same person. The scandal got bigger when not just the above-quoted details became public but also when Sir Keir was found out not to have declared around 5,000 pounds in designer brand clothes gifted to his wife anyway. A short while ago, Starmer offered to pay back 6,000 pounds in gifts and hospitality donations, including tickets to a concert by artist Taylor Swift.

In other European countries, such a behavior by a prime minister would easily lead to a surge in far-right or far-left votes on polling day. Britain is still lucky in this regard. But the public will grow more skeptical, more aware, more disgruntled. The trouble is, for the time being, there is no real opposition, as we discussed in the opening lines – Infighting 2.0 over at the Tories as well, one could attest. Or, as they say, there is never a dull day in British politics, no matter whether in a positive or rather not-so-positive sense.