DAILY MAIL COMMENT: An insult to all working folks

‘It is a beautiful thing, the destruction of words,’ the character Syme, an expert in Newspeak, tells Winston Smith in the novel 1984.

In the latest confirmation of George Orwell’s prescient genius, Sir Keir Starmer yesterday gave us a masterclass in duplicitous doublethink.

The Prime Minister, who once failed to state unequivocally what was meant by a ‘woman’, is now struggling with another two-syllable noun: ‘worker’.

In an interview, the PM said he defined a working person as someone who is ‘anxious about whether they can make ends meet’.

A worker should only be able to ‘maybe save a bit of money’, he emphasised.

Someone would be considered a worker if they ‘don’t have the wherewithal to write a cheque to get out of difficulty’ and also have an ‘anxiety in the bottom of their stomach’ about money, he went on.

In the latest confirmation of George Orwell’s prescient genius, Sir Keir Starmer yesterday gave us a masterclass in duplicitous doublethink

In other words, a worker is only someone who is living almost hand-to-mouth and is in the lowest economic bands.

This will be news to all lexicographers of the English language. They have traditionally defined a worker as ‘someone who works’, without the need for any of Sir Keir’s additional clauses.

But there is a political reason behind this tongue-twisting, of course.

Sir Keir launched into his Orwellian reverie because just a few months ago his party promised boldly and without caveat in its election manifesto: ‘Labour will not increase taxes on working people.’

Poised to break this pledge in next week’s Budget, the PM is forced to change the very meaning of the English language.

You are not a working person if you have any more than minimal savings, the PM has signalled, and therefore you are a cash cow to be milked by the taxman.

It is a monumental insult to the vast majority of people in this country – trades, professions or entrepreneurs – who have worked hard to possess more than just the bare minimum in order to provide for their families and the future. It is also a blow to aspiration and social mobility.

Poised to break the pledge not to increase taxes on working people in next week’s Budget to be announced by Rachel Reeves (pictured), the PM is forced to change the very meaning of the English language

Before we launch a whip-round to buy the PM a concise dictionary, let us quickly run through the categories of people who we already know or fear will be worse off under his Government.

Most pensioners, thanks to the winter fuel payment cut. Most workers, who will suffer from any freeze in income tax thresholds.

Mortgage-holders, whose interest rates will remain higher thanks to a government borrowing binge. Parents saving the state money by privately educating their children, due to the vindictive imposition of VAT on fees.

Anyone paying into a company or private pension, due to the planned National Insurance changes. And anyone whose parent or other loved one dies subject to inheritance tax, if the regime is tightened.

Even some of Labour’s core supporters – public sector workers handed pay rises like toffees – will fall into some of these groups.

Like so many they may now be experiencing buyer’s remorse.

Sir Keir’s linguistic gymnastics trigger more doubts about his ability to lead.

They give us a troubling glimpse of what he really thinks of the electorate, and will make many voters genuinely question whether he is living in the real world.

By telling us things that are patently untrue Labour is laying the ground for a Big Brother Budget and hoping that, like poor Winston Smith, we will finally accept that two plus two equals five.