The pantomime will play out today.
Keir Starmer will visit the King.
The King will then ask Andy Burnham to form a government, as if he has any say in the matter.
Burnham will then walk down Downing Street to deliver a speech full of vibe and very little content.
After that, the news will all be about cabinet appointments and the sackings, after which the endless interpretation that will mean little will begin.
Why will it mean little? That's because unless discussion of a basis for real policy change takes place and a call for it is heard, nothing will happen.
Is that call for change likely? I think not. I suggest that the FT has the mood, but not the required sentiment right. Its lead story on the arrival of Burnham comes from Martin Wolf. His demand? That Burnham put in place a credible long-term plan for managing the national debt. This is the supposed national priority, according to Wolf and the FT.
I suspect this will be the theme in much of the analysis across the mainstream media. If so, we can presume that the failure to manage the country for the benefit of its people will persist, with ongoing disenchantment with what is happening in the lived experience of the people of the UK as a consequence.
And that is why today means little. A neoliberal is replacing a neoliberal, with no more idea what to do about the issues we face than any of his predecessors this century. That is the curse upon him, and the problem that we face. Unless, and until, the tune is changed and we find a better song to sing, the despair will continue.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
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!
One day, I may read in MSM, an article in which the household analogy is challenged and demolished. At that point I may well need a paramedic, to give me CPR.
Meanwhile,. I avoid all MSM articles on economics because they make me so bad tempered.
Thank-you for reading them so I don’t have to.
That’s my job!
Managing the national debt is clearly very far from being the first priority.
But increasing the tax take from the wealthy, which is necessary anyway, assuages that line of criticism. Burnham has a difficult job. He needs political capital. He should not waste it fighting battles he doesn’t need to fight.
I have a question that I have been meaning to ask. Is there anyone in politics whom you believe could not only take forward what I would describe, perhaps too loosely, as your agenda, as articulated in your many posts and articles, as a set of manifesto commitments but also has the political skill to persuade voters, while at the same time transforming relationships with business, financial markets, and international stakeholders?
It seems to me that making significant changes is extremely difficult, even with a large parliamentary majority, because of the many competing vested interests within political parties themselves. Added to that are the challenges posed by social media, the mainstream media, voter apathy, and the increasing tendency for some voter beliefs to become detached from evidence.
Such a politician would indeed need to be remarkable: someone with not only the conviction and policy understanding to pursue fundamental change, but also the communication skills, resilience, and political judgement required to build and sustain public support for it.
That is a very good question, and I am afraid I do not have a very satisfactory answer.
Politics is not simply about having the right policies. It is about building coalitions, changing the terms of debate and persuading people that a different future is both possible and desirable. Those are rare skills, and they are rarely found together in one person.
I am also wary of placing too much faith in individuals. Lasting political change is usually the product of movements, ideas and institutions, not personalities. A leader can accelerate change, but only if there is already a constituency for it.
At present, I do not see anyone in mainstream UK politics who combines the economic understanding, political courage and communication skills that would be required to deliver the sort of transformation I think is necessary. That is not to say such a person cannot emerge, but I do not think they have yet.
What I do think is that the ideas have to come first. If enough people understand that there are workable alternatives to the current orthodoxy, then politicians will eventually follow. In democracies, leaders often appear to lead when, in reality, they have recognised that public opinion has already begun to move.
So my priority remains making the case for those ideas. If they gain sufficient support, the politicians will come. If they do not, no politician, however gifted, will be able to deliver them.
Is this one result of centralisation of power, eventually down to a “kitchen/sofa/PM+1×SPAD” form of government that has evolved through Thatcher/Blair/May-Timothy/Johnson-Cummings/Starmer-MacSweeney?
Build a team – trust them – devolve power to them – allow failure.