There is an article in the Financial Times this morning with the following headline:
The government has no time to lose if it wants to reform social care
The article is by Sarah Woolnough, who is the chief executive of the King's Fund. In it, she laments the confusion that has befallen those tasked with the management of social care since Labour came into office and notes:
So in a few short months the mood in the social care sector has gone from cautious enthusiasm to bewilderment and, now, anger. Bewilderment at what long-term vision the government really has for social care. And anger at the fact that such a critical part of the national health and care infrastructure is being so consistently overlooked and is expected to simply suck up the extra costs it now faces.
Yet it is not too late to rescue what has been a disappointing and confusing start by the government.
I am not now going to do the obvious thing and analyse what she has to say about social care. Anyone who knows anything about the NHS knows that Wes Streeting has no chance of delivering reform in that service unless social care is improved. Sarah Woolnough can address that issue better than I can.
Instead, what I am interested in is her observation that Labour came into government without, to be blunt, any idea as to what they were going to do and have done nothing to improve on that situation since they arrived in office.
The public is undoubtedly suffering buyer's remorse when it comes to labour, but as yet, they have seen relatively little that directly impacts their daily lives as a result of its inaction and incompetence. The managers in social care already seeing what that means, as they are in the NHS and elsewhere.
There were those of us who said in advance of the election that Labour was not saying what it was going to do because it did not have a plan. Labour apologists told us to be quiet because it was actually keeping its tinder dry, and the big left-of-contre vision would become clear once the election was won. I always felt (and said) that this claim by the Labour apologists was baloney.
So it has proved to be. Labour arrived in offices without a philosophy or vision, with no plan, and no clue as to why it wanted to be in government. The sole aim was getting into office whilst not being Corbynite. Labour has proved to be at least as hollow as I expected, and maybe worse.
The trouble is, there are real problems in the country that do need solutions, and the lacklustre and ideas-free leadership of Labour has only succeeded since being elected in providing that they are not the people to deliver any of the reforms that are required so that people in this country might enjoy the public services they need and deserve, and on which the country is dependent.
The only question to ask in that case is, will the disappointment end, and will the confusion be cleared? There are, I regret, no more reasons to think so than there were back in June when those of us with eyes to see and ears to hear realised that Labour was saying nothing about its plans because it had no plans. The confusion will continue, as will the disappointment.
When history comes to appraising Starmer's government, there will be one over-arching theme, and that will be missed opportunity.
It's a missed opportunity we can ill afford.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I wondered to what extent you actually think we have a democracy at all? The choice at the last election was between two equally bad choices neither proposing anything materially different than the other. Why is that? When there was a vision for real change in the Labour Party in 2015-2019 it was ruthlessly destroyed from both within and without the Labour Party. Labour 2024 didn’t even propose things which have broad and significant public support such as nationalisation of the railways. Why is that? There isn’t even an ideological debate any more. The answer has to be that we do not have a democracy, we have an oligarchy. Elections are pretend things, which look like they are important but they are not. Elections are just a performance. Real power is not exercised by the people.
It’s not a lack of democracy, it’s a lack of a fit-for-the-purpose democraric model in the UK.
You guys seriously need a few parliaments of coalition politics to understand how messed up FPTP is.
The biggest plus of any form of PR is contact with the lost voters who can’t bring themselves to vote for more of the same with a different-coloured tie.
There are limitations, as we’re seeing in the Netherlands right now, but FPTP has no place in amy modern democracy.
Not so, A – Lister, at least in Scotland. We did have a choice, and while it would not have mattered to the eventual outcome of the last General Election, because even if we had elected Independence supporting M.Ps to all Scottish seats, it would only have reduced the Labour Party’s majority in the House of Commons. But we had that choice, and in my opinion, funked the opportunity.
The UK still has strong democratic institutions. And the government was elected by a free and fair election.
What has disappeared are 2 things. The first is democratic zeal and belief that the government serves the country. Too many are in politics to serve themselves. And second the idea that rules and laws are for the government to follow.
The previous government did a lot of damage. And for reasons unknown to me, labour seems unable to course correct. Labour will be seen to be incompetent.
The reason must be obvious. Labour under Starmer are simply Tories.
Thank you and well said.
I hear from former colleagues at a City trade body that they “did not expect Labour in government to be so receptive to the City*, 90% of our recommendations (to water down post 2008 reforms) have been accepted and they meet either the Treasury or No 10 weekly”. *A continuation from opposition.
Other than the City trade body, the people with the most access are Wall Street asset strippers and Bill Gates, so not even British oligarchs. Why? The US oligarchy** pays big money, so ministers are preparing their golden parachutes for the inevitable defeat in 2029. **This also explains Middle East policy, not just here, but France, too.
I observe oligarchy and pretend democracy almost weekly The next session is Tuesday evening. I shall send a read-out.
Thanks
I agree with A-Lister regarding democracy – and yet it was a higher than usual turnout for the last election (around 60%), so those who did not vote can only blame themselves. Those who did vote may however be disappointed by the result, either because it was not their desired result, or because the party who was voted into power has not been honest with voters. Equally is FPTP democratic when the present government received only around 1/3 of the votes? – it seems that when just one MP represents diverse opinions, these diverse opinions are not represented in Parliament – the constituents who did not vote for the parliamentarian now representing them cannot feel involved in any decision making. A-Lister mentioned Oligarchy – to this (and this can be seen in many governments, not just UK), I would add Plutocracy, Kakistocracy and even possibly Kleptocracy.
A good assessment of the situation.
[There is a typo in the sentence below]
There were those of us who said in advance of the election that Labour was not saying what it was going to do because it did not have a plan. Labourt apologists
Thanks
Very true Richard.
The Labour plan was/is continue with the Tory economic policy, some easy wins, virtually remove the right to buy but no big funding for well built new affordable homes.
Keep going with the “undeserving poor” approach to benefits.
Keep going with big subsidies to the City.
Keep going with the NHS is broken.
Keep going with the UK is not working.
Keep going with education is not working.
Keep going with take the “gifts” from donors
The thought process is blame the UK population but not come up with anything that might possibly help solve the real issues facing the UK.
It’s sad. If the core is rotten others have to step up (more work). Lions led by donkeys. Again it’s down to money and the fiscal space/policy to do better. All the best everyone!
While Unite is raising the issue of the WFA in England, the real action on the WFA it seems is about to happen in Scotland. It appears the SNP is going to announce imminently that it is going to reinstate part (or all?) of the WFA for Scottish pensioners. Not before time most critics would say (because Scots are furious about Labour’s treachery over the issue). This sense of betrayal by Labour was underscored by the sudden desertion of Anas Sarwar and Scottish Labour from Government policy; they said that Scottish Labour would reinstate the WFA if elected to government in Holyrood in 2026; two years too late, but this is what you do when you are in a political hole that is closing over you. The absurdity of this has already been noticed – Scottish Labour are asking Scots to vote Labour to save themselves from a Labour government. It is crackers. The light at last seems to have dawned, even within the slow moving, ponderous, bureaucratised politics of the SNP.
It appears Labour in Westminster shot itself in the foot; only for Scottish Labour to shoot itself in the other foot; and now the SNP is now going to shoot the Scottish-Westminster Labour fox. This is the Union, this is how Scotland is governed in the Union.
Things are much worse than that. The petition to call a new election has got the backing of Farage and the conservatives. They know that a re run of a GE will yield a great deal more seats to them by way of buyer’s remorse. Without a 3rd option, Farage is in.
The Green party really is the only hope left, and they need to get out and campaign now, before it is too late.
Richard, if you, or any other commenters have any influence on the GP, please use it now, for all our sakes
They still have a dire economic poloicy that I could not support
If they changte it I will take them seriously
I can’t otherwise and it has not happened as yet
Green Party (England and Wales) published economics and finance policy is ‘out of date’ and subject to major revision. However, the democratic processes in the party mean that it will be drafted and revised and then confirmed by a party conference: so it will be a while before it’s in the public domain. The disadvantage is the delay; the advantage is that there’ll be an ‘educational’ process with party members, for a new policy based primarily around MMT principles.
Hi Colin
I look forward to that new policy.
I will comment when it is made publicly available.
Richard
Sean I’m afraid you don’t know much about what is happening right now in the Green Party. Down at grass roots level we are doing fine although I notice that in by elections we seem to have lost momentum. But at top level trans extremists have seized control ( it is easy because policies are decided at national conferences to which any member can come and so it is easy for a small group, say 250 people to take control of an organisation with over 50,000 members which is what has happened) To get the picture do a search on ‘Greens in Exile’ ). We have some ridiculous policies which I am sure the mass media would bring out if the Green Party was considered a serious threat.
However, the last conference agreed to reinstate two annual policy setting conferences open to whole of membership attendance which I’m hoping will go someway to resolving this situation. In addition, other membership groups are working to revise the grievance policies which led to the Greens in exile situation.
A-Lister has it right.
In the last 14 years of Tory rule, I think a tipping point was reached where if you do not invest in things like public services and utilities, infrastructure, the costs increase exponentially because you have not spent to save, so to speak. Anyone who owns a house or a car knows this.
Things have become almost unrecoverable especially if you are operating under artificially imposed spending limits (imposed by your own ignorance or what passes as loopy Neo-liberal operational knowledge about taxes and money). And the passage of time as will depleting budgets means of course the money needed to fix the problem becomes huge – but not if you consider that you should have spent the money in the first place. In other words, the truth of the matter is, is that not spending the money when you should have was the mistake.
The thing is, even that ”unrecoverable’ bit is a lie because the 2008 bailout of the private sector banking system and the current largess in the CBRA proves that fiat money can expand around crises. And as Richard has said, we are therefore looking at choices, decisions, and bad ones. A crisis of money is dealt with decisively in 2008; a crisis in social care is not. It’s outrageous to the point of absurdity.
Regarding social care, this idea that the State that set this up did not know that the baby booms were going to result in an aging boom is frankly ludicrous. It makes the State look stupid, and that the idea of social security was a mistake when all it is, is political parties not sticking to the commitments of previous governments because their very existence is now reliant quite frankly on the support of a well organised cabal of hyper-rich who see themselves as the only ones worthy of benefiting from a fiat money system and are not interested in allocating money equitably – they are monopolists.
And this is where I get really angry with it all indeed. Labour’s is an illegitimate government, replacing another previous illegitimate government in what has become an illegitimate democracy because money acquisition by monopolist’s rules.
Labour is worse than most on here expected – which was pretty bad.
They portray themselves as ideology – free – so they can operate in the world as it really is – and concentrate on ‘what works’
But there own ideology precludes them from trying to undersand how the economy and society really work -notably if it points to public ownership of natural monopolies or to the need for more pubic spending or even to understand that there may indeed be money available to spend.
The say they are taking ‘difficult decisions’ now – early on so that the benefits will come through before the next election.
So they already look not only heartless but stupid – since these decisions – or non d eciisons in the case of social care – will make things worse. Everyone agrees that sorting social care would massivley boost the NHS throughput of treatment . That might indeed be a ‘difficult decision’ which would pay off.
‘Buyers remorse’ indeed.
But as they are funded by big food, pharma, oil, private healthcare etc. , are we surprised?
If Labour was listening to its own members and the populace, it would have already nationalised water and produced both a Green Plan and put agriculture (and the supermarkets) on a wartime food security footing. The only links to the past are the name Labour and the vampires of New Labour, who also betrayed their mandate.
I recently lunched with a few old friends from the bond market of yester-year; all would (at least until recently) would have considered themselves Tory. One, with health issues, sang the praises of the NHS that is saving his life – stretched…. but not broken. One, a landowner/farmer was slightly embarrassed by all the fuss over IHT and would not be joining Clarkson on the picket line. One, an old Etonian, who could not understand what Labour thinking – “the Nation voted for better public services, why wasn’t there a more radical approach? Why was Labour squandering the chance to actually do something?”
We are all now in our 60s and recognise that we have all had a good run; we all want to live in a country where stuff works; we are all prepared to “pay our share”.
Now, this may not be a scientific sample but the anger at Labour comes not from the right (bar a few folk that write for the Mail/Telegraph) but from the Centre and Centre-left that is appalled by lack of will to fix things. Surely, the Labour leadership must be getting the same feedback that I am? Or do we live in different worlds?
In think they live in a differnt world
It is easy to be cocooned in the Westminster bubble.
I suspect they are terrified – no, petrified, no rendered catatonic – by the ease with which a few newspaper titles (which set the whole domestic political news agenda, not least over terrestrial broadcasters) can move the opinion polls; or Labour thinks they move the opinion polls. That is all it takes, when you are led by followers, not leaders.
Agreed
Thank you, both.
I agree with Richard.
I would add Westminster and its satellite suburbs (Notting Hill, Islington, Clapham and docklands) and outposts (Oxbridge) and, something that a young French journalist and I discussed exactly two years ago, an unhealthy interest in, even obsession with, the US media and politics and neglect, ignorance even, of the domestic hinterland and European neighbourhood.
Mutual agreement on that
Things are on the move in Scotland
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn9x0gy7gdeo
All Starmer and Reeves kept repeating before the election were centred on no tax or NI rises for ‘Working People’, and also Everything has been ‘Fully Costed’.
They were trotted out over and over again as though their memories were limited.
Reeves memory probably was full and those two soundbites were her limit and more or less still are.
She is no economist.
When I read your headline I was half expecting Joseph Stiglitz’s article in today’s Guardian to be one of your 3. It seems to me that the Democrats are now where Labour will be in 2029 unless they dump neoliberal economics. I quote “ The party needs to provide a new vision of a society that offers education and opportunity to all; where markets compete to produce better products that enhance living standards, rather than to devise better ways of exploiting workers, customers, and the environment; where we recognise that we have moved on from the industrial age to an economy oriented around services, knowledge, innovation, and care. A new economy needs new rules and new roles for government” Joseph Stiglitz
I largely agree with what he had to say.
Are we surprised? No.
Is it much better anywhere else? Most eoropean countries are in crisis mode; thats before Trump starts a trade war.
All the portents , according to my reading of Perry Anderson’s ‘Disputing Diaster’ his account of various historians thories of WW1, is that countries in decline become reckless in desperate attempts to keep their place at the top table. Secret political agreements are hatched in bilateral treaties that only the few know about let alone influence. Diplomacy is going back to use of threats and coercion which inevitably leads to wars.
Starmers worse crime , following Johnson , is to egg on Ukraine in a war with Russia , which includes inviting the exchange of ballistic missiles.
That is beyond reckless.
Starmers utopian legalism and utopian moralism cannot cope well with either political reality or economic possibilities. No shame in that but the UK shame is there is no ready replacement and Europe is scratching around looking for new leaders…
I would vote for Richard but he wisely would have none of it.
What is to be done?
If I ever wanted to be a politician it was decades ago, and I gave no regret about being a thinker, not a member of the Westminster crowd.
Surely, if progressive politics (I’m assuming the Labour party), used ‘Infrastructure Easing’, i.e., QE, to make substantial progress over five years to the UK’s forlorn public and community infrastructure, the people would see and tangibly feel improvement across the country.
It would help, too, to defend against popular politics complaining incessantly about all and sundry that under the Tories became so malevolent to the public for the gains of the 1%.
Agreed