I have been asked by several commentators to comment on the rumoured draft Labour manifesto published on the Labour List website. Ever obedient (?) I have duly read it.
Long ago I learned that when reading documents like this, which are inevitably sales pitches, the question to ask is ‘what is not being said?' The simplest of check lists helps answer that in this case. There are just three items on that list, which are:
- What is planned?
- Why is it being planned?
- How will it be delivered?
In this case it is really easy to answer my ‘what is not being said?' question. Whilst an almost unfeasibly long list of things are planned (which given Starmer's track record need to be taken with a considerable pinch of salt) there is almost no hint at all as to answers to my second and third items on my checklist.
As it stands the list looks OK (although the failure to take inflation into account makes the commitment to spend £28 billion a year on green related issues look plain straightforwardly silly because we all know that things are more expensive now and Labour should not pretend otherwise). But we have no clue why Labour are going to do these things. What, in summary, is the strategy?
Is it full employment?
Is there a goal to reduce inequality?
Is there a plan to increase real wages?
And is the aim to change relationships with the EU, which might require keeping the Tories out of office and so require PR?
Come to that, is the role of the City to be downplayed so other sectors get a look in?
And what is the policy on trade?
I am left guessing on so much what I have to ask, is do Labour know, or is it that they just come up with a nice shopping list without having done any strategic thinking at all, which is what it looks like!
And when it comes to the ‘how?' all that we know is that fiscal rules are going to be rigidly enforced; the proposed tax changes come to a few billion (likely less than £10 billion, so little more than 1% of total current revenues, otherwise known as the square root of not a lot); and there is no hint of how people are going to be encouraged to work for the government to deliver all these plans when Labour has made it clear it believes in way-below inflation pay rises for those already working for the state. Not only will they come into office with a workforce all to well aware that Starmer would not let his team support their reasonable pay claims this winter, but that Labour are very likely to oppose those increases once in charge. Labour's plans clearly require recruitment, and there is no hint of a plan as to how that is going to happen.
Based on these observations I look at this manifesto and see pie in the sky, closely followed by flying pigs.
Until Labour works out what it is for and in whose interests it is going to act we will continue to get meaningless publications like this. No wonder people have trouble believing Starmer is going to run a government with a significant majority.
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:
The so-called Green investment of £28 billion and only £10 billion in increased taxes means that if Labour is sincere (assuming hey know the meaning of the word – think the original 10 pledges of Starmer’s leadership campaign) then they will have to abandon fiscal rules and use the good old magic money tree.
Well, quite. “Have iron-clad fiscal rules” means almost nothing without specifying what rules and why would they want to commit to sticking inflexibly to self-imposed so-called rules, come what may. Events have a habit of challenging such rules so they become a hostage to fortune.
they need you as an advisor
That Labour list reminded me of an NGO strategy process: lots of ideas are chucked on a whiteboard and the people who run the process decide which ones go into the strategy, based on a host of criteria from politics and personal preference to which ideas have the strongest internal lobbies behind them that have to be placated.
So one can see that lot of detailed work has gone into certain areas (green industrial strategy, wages and labour rights) whereas others are aspirational or just made up. The tax part reads to me like something made up by NGO people who want to get into the media but don’t want to, or can’t, think structurally (been there, done that.)
And some of it looks incoherent e.g. they want to expand the state while also having strict fiscal rules, or they want to devolve some power without any commitment to devolve fiscal autonomy that I can see.
I wonder how far they’ll tidy this up vs using rhetorical l polyfila (‘growth”) to try and smooth over the cracks.
Thanks Diarmid
And I know you have the experience to make that comment
I hope you are well
It would be nice to think that Stymied is just being coy to stave off the undoubted criticism that will come his way if he goes down the MMT route (‘people would not believe us’) and all the hullabaloo there would be about debt for future generations.
It would be nice to think……………..but that’s all. There is nothing concrete really is there.
“More than double onshore wind capacity, triple solar capacity and quadruple offshore wind capacity”
Given the way in which network operators (DNOs and Nat Grid) are regulated (or rather – are not regulated), this ambition will not be realised in any sort of timely fashion for the simple reason that for as long as network opertors generate revenue based on the value of their asset base, they will always and in all cases favour the expansion of that asset base (= more copper in the network). There are plenty of ways in which networks can be adapted to accomodate more renewables. These ways have existed for 20 years or more. But, DNOs et al are not interested for the reasons given. The imbeciles that operate elec networks in South Wales (ex-WPD, now owned by National Grid) are talking about 10 years before they can allow the connection of, for example a 5MW PV farm. Pathetic.
Better regulation is not the answer – this has been tried for the best part of 33 years – it has never worked (not least due to information assymentry – regulator vs regulator) and it can never work. These realities pass Liebore by because re-nationalisation would require money & political capital – & Liebore has no interest in spending either. There is also the question of understanding: I doubt if there is a single person in Liebore that has the knowledge to even appreciate the problems. If anybody ever makes a documentary of Liebore in the period 2019 to 2024 they could always call it “Dumb & Dumber – the rise of Starmerism”.
Only 10 years to connect a new generator?
I thought late 2030s was no9w being quoted
If Labour will not tackle that it is not serious
Is there any real reason why such delays exist, other than commercial obstruction?
The 5MW of PV is a real project. The DNO concerned claims fault levels – the problem is that the contribution of the 5MW to fault levels – even using the DNOs own metrics is miniscule. My proposal is to install reverse power flow equipment that will disconnect the PV – faster than the DNO can detect the fault.
What the DNO wants is for Ofgem (mostly know-nothing lawyers) to allow them to “reinforce the local network” – this will then count to their asset base & they can then charge UK serfs for this. What’s going to happen instead is that the client will do a couple of interesting things, forgive me if I don’t want to spill the beans, but its always nice to surprise the cluster of imbeciles, cretins & money grubbing morons that constitute the combo of network operators and Ofgem.
Commercial concerns…..nah…lets call it what it is: trough concerns, the DNOs want the money trough filled to overflowing. My god how I despise these bastards.
You do not surprise me
While I am as frustrated as anyone about Labour’s complete failure to make a coherent case for an alternative government – I do see why that might be the right strategy at this point. Today the Conservative Party’s puppeteers in the media are already doing their best to discredit anything that looks as if it might be a Labour policy. Front pages of “Outrage over Labour’s plans to ‘reopen Brexit'” (Daily Express) and “Labour accused of plot to reverse Brexit” (Daily Mail).
I do hope some serious policy work is being done in the background though, there isn’t enough evidence of that to my liking. I think once a General Election is called the media is constrained in its partisan name-calling, but there needs to be something meaty going into a manifesto to give people a positive reason to vote Labour.
But nothing Labour does will stop this nonsense – which is not working for the Tories – whilst not saying anything is positively harming its own support
I can see no logic for their current strategy at all
People want people to believe in. Refusing to give them that cannot help them, at all
I think Starmer and his advisers and front bench would do well to return to a simple set of questions that have been around for decades (1930s) and that (should) still form the starting point for any decent attempt at policy making and implementation/delivery: Harold Lasswell’s ‘Who gets what, when and how?’ That’s what politics and public policy are about, basically. Add ‘why’ to the equation – because being transparent about why certain choices have been made over others is important – and it would certainly help Starmer explain to UK voters what Labour intends to do if it gets into office, and thus why we should vote for them. And the answers would be a damn sight clearer than all the ambiguous ‘visions’ and ‘goals’ they seem to obsess on.
They should hire you
I think Labour should hire the Pilgrim..