Labour backbenchers have weak Starmer exactly where they want him and Britain will suffer

Dysfunctional is the word that best describes this Labour government, and Rachel Reeves' tears last week exposed the pent-up tensions within what is now an ungovernable party. The extraordinary last-minute collapse by the PM to his backbenchers on welfare reform the day before Reeves' fateful weeping marked the effective end of Keir Starmer's premiership.

Of course, he may well continue to squat in No.10 for a few more years. After all, why would his backbenchers even try to remove him now they have him exactly where they want him? Starmer is - as his backbenchers well know - completely impotent politically.

The latest rebellion had nothing at all to do with the substance of the proposed welfare reforms which have

now been abandoned. Although unpopular and ill-thought through, those proposals were extremely modest and

wouldn't have made a dent in the benefits bill. They were certainly not radical enough to cause a problem for a

government with a majority in excess of 160 seats.

What has made the Labour Party ungovernable and shot Starmer's authority to bits have been the constant U-turns from his government.

It all started with the winter fuel payments which has probably been the biggest and most embarrassing reversal

to date.

As a former Deputy Chief Whip, I know better than anyone that the reason U-turns are so disastrous for governments is because they are the biggest morale sappers for backbench MPs.

For example, when Labour scrapped the winter fuel payments for most pensioners, backbench MPs were expected to go out on to the media to defend the decision and do the same with constituents.

When the flip-flop happens, those same people are then expected to go out and defend the new position. In short it's embarrassing for them - having to argue one thing one week, and the exact opposite the next.

MPs may take that on the chin once or even twice, but after that they will vow never to do so again.

So, when Labour proposed these welfare changes, many backbenchers justifiably considered there was no point making themselves unpopular supporting them when the chances were that the government would change its mind and scrap them.

So they refused to support them in the first place. Without the previous U-turns, this rebellion would never have happened.

Most of us knew that Starmer was weak and would change with the wind, but now his backbenchers know it too.

And if he ever asks them to support anything which is even mildly unpopular or controversial, his backbenchers will no longer wear it.

Norman Lamont once said that John Major was in office but not in power. That now applies to Keir Starmer. Sadly, the country may have another four years of this stalemate.

Lord knows what will be left of the UK when the nightmare finally ends.

I am thinking of starting a new campaign called "Time to say no". For how on earth are the DWP saying "yes" and handing out disability benefits for things like writer's cramp, food intolerance, acne and - here's one for you which really takes the biscuit - "fictitious disorder" which is a mental health condition where someone pretends to be ill or deliberately produces symptoms of illness in themselves. These are the shocking findings of research from the TaxPayers' Alliance.

The public have had enough. But until the benefit system becomes more rigorous and learns to say "no", the welfare bill is set to rocket to £100billion per year by the end of the decade, and we'll have a whole new generation claiming rather than paying their way in society.

Don't you just love Elon Musk? He thought he could make cars better so he invented the Tesla: he thought he could run Twitter better so he bought it and turned it into X; he thought he could run a better space programme so set one up, and in doing so managed to retrieve the two astronauts who had been abandoned in space for six months.

Now, after falling out with Trump over his tariffs and his $5trillion Big Beautiful Bill, Musk has set up his own party - the America Party.

Time and again he has done what other people would have considered impossible. I certainly wouldn't bet against Musk running and becoming President.

+++++++++++++++++

I have to tell you I'm excited about the new Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana Party. Politics is currently way too depressing, and this duo will certainly add comedy value to the picture.

Corbyn is an old school socialist whilst Sultana is incredibly ambitious and - as her surname suggests - a political fruitcake. This combination has already got off to a comical start with her prematurely announcing the new Party leaving Corbyn's supporters livid.

They will add some colour to the political landscape, but I suspect their huge egos will lead to them falling out long before the next election comes around.

+++++++++++++++++

The Welsh Windbag is back spouting rubbish. Neil Kinnock, 83, is calling on Starmer to impose a 2% wealth tax on Brits worth more than £10m to plug Labour's black hole after failing to deliver on Starmer's flagship benefit changes.

Hasn't Kinnock seen the numbers of millionaires fleeing the UK already, or read the latest predictions from Henley and Partners which sees Britain losing 16,500 millionaires - more than any other country in the world? Is he really that stupid?

In stark contrast, countries like Italy will gain 3,600 millionaires, while the United States will see an extra 7,500 and the United Arab Emirates an additional 9,800 by promoting a low tax regime.

Despite what clowns like Kinnock might say, we could really do with thousands of benefit claimants leaving the country not high-earning taxpayers.

+++++++++++++++++

More politically correct nonsense from the BBC. This time they are slapping trigger warnings on seven episodes of the harmless comedy classic, The Royle Family, for "discriminatory language that some viewers may find offensive".

And yet this same bunch of humourless, gormless woke-warriors allowed Bob Vylan at Glastonbury last week to chant "Death to the IDF" on air. Didn't they find those words discriminatory, and think they would offend viewers? Apparently not.

What a joke the BBC has become. The sooner we all stop having to pay the Blatantly Biased Corporation licence fee the better.