I took part in a discussion yesterday on what might happen to left of centre politics if Labour does, as expected, win this year‘s general election. The assumption was that it would do so on the basis of a profoundly right wing platform, which it appears that it has every intention of delivering when in office. Firm conclusions were not reached, but I thought it worthwhile sharing some of those thoughts that I presented.
We will, of course, know more about the likelihood of Labour having a substantial majority in the Commons after this week's local council election in some parts of the UK. If, as seems likely, a very large majority is in the offing, my suggestion was that a number of problems will have to be faced by Labour, almost immediately.
The first is that once any post-election euphoria is over and it becomes apparent that Labour has not only no plan, but also no intention, of changing the Tory approach to government, with austerity remaining a likehood, then significant buyers' remorse will rapidly set in amongst the population in general. This will be fuelled by a mainstream media that will be all two willing to criticise every move that Labour makes. Keir Starmer's honeymoon period with the British public might be very short.
If, at the same time, Labour has a substantial majority (by which I mean anything on the scale of 80 or more, with that figure being deliberately picked because it was the level that Boris Johnson achieved in 2019 that has not delivered the Conservatives a basis for continuing power) then Starmer will face a very particular problem. This will come from a multitude of existing and new back benchers who are not ultra-loyalist to him, but who nonetheless think that they might have a good prospect of retaining their seats in the future, and who will, therefore, have the confidence to challenge his leadership within the constraints of the party within Parliament. They will,of course, know that nothing they do will prevent him from getting his way, but they will also simultaneously be aware that they can present alternative thinking with relative impunity in this situation. In other words, Starmer is likely to have a considerable problem with party discipline if his majority is too large.
Thirdly, political instability in Scotland will not be the blessing that many think it might be for Labour. Governing Wales has not proved easy for Labour, and they have relied upon coalition agreements there. The same might be true in Scotland if the SNP leaves government. The potential for embarrassment that this might create - especially if Labour has, as a result, to govern with the support of the Tories - might be very significant, especially when the Labour front bench team in Scotland is particularly uninspiring.
Fourthly, there will always be what Harold McMillan was reputed to have described as “events“, which by definition have the capacity to undermine the best laid plans of any politician. The particular risk is that these events might require additional spending that will prove that Rachael Reeves supposed commitment to ironclad fiscal rules is skin deep, and probably non-existent. The whole promise for government that Labour has made might be shattered in that case.
Put these factors together and although right now the realistic prospect for getting almost any of the ideas that I am currently promoting into the Labour manifesto appears decidedly limited, in reality the demand for policy alternatives, with explanations being available on the way in which they might be funded, could be very high quite soon after the general election happens.
I am old enough to be aware the politics is not a short-term game. This year's general election does not offer me any good reasons for significant hope. But, I seriously expect that change will follow thereafter, because I cannot imagine any way in which Starmer and Reeves can succeed with the policy proposals that they have made. In that case policy options for those anywhere on the left of the political spectrum must be available.
I am living in hope.
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:
Interesting Richard, especially your last point. There are a large number of crises both domestic and international approaching or actually here which will require dealing with.
1) Local government going bankrupt, sinking NHS, chronic housing shortage and a demoralised and underfunded civil service. Like my department HMRC where, in my area, we don’t have CT or ED (employer duties e.g PAYE, NMW) caseworkers.
2) Disgraced and failing privatised utilities like the water companies, Royal Mail, Post Office, railways etc to be sorted out ..I E renationalised.
3) The climate emergency which we can all now see happening in front of us, just as the scientists have been telling us for years would happen. So as you’ve pointed out many times, there is the need for massive investment in flood defenses, decarbonising the energy system and transport infrastructure etc.
4) Ukraine. Given the horrific possibility that Trump could be the next US president and will probably not support NATO, Europe on its own will have to support Ukraine in resisting Putin, or see unprovoked nationalist aggression from a fascist autocracy triumph in Europe. Or, and I can see this happening, NATO will end up fighting Russia. Either way, military spending in the UK will have to massively increase.
Given all the above, labour’s ‘iron fiscal discipline ‘ will have to be ditched very quickly.
Add Brexit costs and massive compensation costs for blood claims that the Tories are delaying until they leave office…
Oh yes, those as well. Spoke to the owner of a little deli I’ve known over the years today. Precisely the kind of SME dealing in artisan food and wine from France (mainly) whose prices are going up due to the totally unnecessary fraudulently obtained Brexit delivered by the tories, and now accepted by labour.
He’ll survive, but it won’t do his business any good.
“compensation costs for blood claims that the Tories are delaying until they leave office…”
Have all the sub-postmasters been compensated? Is the “postmaster’s gate” still hanging around?
That will also be left for Labour
What might be the impact of the electorate realising that they live in what is in effect a one party state with no opportunity to change it?
The grownth of alternative parties?
Civil Unrest?
The problem for Starmer and Reeves is they’ve mindlessly bought into the Thatcherite ideology of market perfectionism which is accompanied by a set of lies such as the market can better deliver in situations where there is no choice (water and sewage for example) or that hoary old chestnut that the UK government has no money of its own. Market Perfectionism blinkers will prevent Starmer and Reeves learning any lessons from other countries, like the United States for example, which have learnt lessons from MMT’s unique Post Keynesian approach to boost their economic growth:-
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02784/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGlqnHTBP3I
As you say, shortly after the election there will be a need for new policies and a reevaluation of policies, or lack of them, in the labour manifesto. Labour don’t appear to be giving much thought to the policies they might try to implement, as opposed to the policies they espouse to win the election (I am disgusted that Labour appear willing to mislead the electorate in order to win).
I am therefore very grateful to the few people like you are making practical suggestions, such as your Taxing Wealth Report and some blog posts. Hopefully suggestions such as these might influence a post election Labour government (even if they don’t appear to have much impact before then).
Professor of Government and the Constitution, Robert Hazell of UCL has very wisely observed that the issues for Holyrood are as challenging for opposition parties as for a minority Government (BBC Radio Scotland GMS). Wisdom doesn’t survive long in the BBC given its selection of supposed sources of knowledge. Unfortunately Unionist journalism has too many Westminster obsessed journalists, like the ever blandly predictable Alex Massie (also on GMS), content to read the neurotic Unionist Biblical script by wrote; who wish to forget that it was Westminster that designed Holyrood to make minority government the norm, the conventional standard (ironically, deliberately so designed to ensure the SNP could not exercise the power Conservative and Labour governments take for granted they are entitled to exercise in the biased, Party-first system, that has allowed the two major parties to turn Westminster into the toxic, FPTP-driven elective dictatorship it has long become, by stealth); but of course Unionism delivers the shoddy journalism it deserves. The test is that such snake-oil salesmen as Massie, or Neal never rise above their endemic prejudices.
By rote (auto-correct?).
Fair points.
The G’ showed a map of where the council election are taking place. There is a significant block in the North West – where there is a significant muslim population. It is quite possible that whilst the tory seats might move to LINO (or possibly LIb-Dems & others) there might be an upset a la Rochdale for many seats that LINO thinks it will win. Thus local elections may be something of an outlier with respect to what could happen in a general election.
Furthermore, if independents make a good showing, LINO gets a result that is not so wonderful and the tory wipe-out is not so bad, Sunak may well decide to keep the show on the road for as long as possible partly on the basis of your Macmillan quote. Set against that: Brexit coming into full force (food), the on-going slo-mo disaster that is privatised monopoly utilities, black swans such as climate events, I’m not sure I’d want to be a Tory PM or even a LINO PM (given their current set of non-policies).
Thank you, Mike.
I was at a Bank of England event yesterday afternoon and fell into conversation with a retired Fed and Bank official now consulting in emerging markets. She welcomed the rise of independents and decision by Galloway’s team to stand in every seat in England and Wales. I imagine the person is a Millikan republican / Tory wet, but she is disgusted by the neoliberals and neocons in charge here and in the US and thinks it’s the priority to get rid of them and widen the Overton window. She added that many of her US former colleagues are equally disgusted and want regime change.
I am not optimistic from their public statements, but you can’t rule out Labour doing some good.
Going back to the last comparable moment, the 1997 Labour manifesto was more warm words than specific proposals, but once in power there were actually a lot of pretty radical actions (though looking back the Iraq shenanigans get in the way of remembering what happened earlier). Removing most hereditary members of the House of Lords, the Human Rights Act, the Supreme Court, the Minimum Wage, Civil Partnerships, the Good Friday Agreement, investment in pre-school education including Sure Start, plus setting out on the much longer term task of rebuilding the NHS and the school system.
The question is whether Starmer and co are capable of similar energy and imagination.
Undeniable, but Labour was much further to the left then, hard as that is to recall when thinking about Blair. He did nit have the control Starmer has.