I seriously wonder how long Labour has got before it has no choice but to wake up and smell the coffee.
It would be incredibly easy for Starmer, Reeves and Streeting to be sitting very smugly at present thinking that the election is sewn up and that their future in government is assured. On the basis of that they could and should be planning a whole string of King's Speeches in which they might deliver their grand vision for the UK.
My problem with this suggestion should be obvious. Whilst the first observation is clearly true in the sense that the probability that they will win the election is very high, the second assumes that they have a plan for when they are in office, and nothing does at present suggest to me that anything of that sort exists.
It is, of course, possible that the Labour leadership team has created a ship so tight that nothing has leaked from it and they are playing a deliberate game of not disclosing their plans. It would be foolish to ignore this possibility. They do, rightly, know that much of the media is still not on their side.
However, I do not think that the team is anything like that watertight, let alone clever. Instead, like dazed rabbits that can hardly believe their luck on realising that they might suffer their fourth loss in a row, they are still so obsessed with winning the election that almost no one, I suspect, within the party has given much (if any) thought to what might happen next.
If there is a plan for government (and by now they should have one), I would be surprised. After all, we know that they might have only agreed on a manifesto very recently.
Likewise, if almost anyone within the shadow team beyond those very close to Starmer, has any real clue as to what might be expected of them on the day that they walk into their new department, I will be astonished. Nor do I expect anything much to change between now and then.
I do, in fact, have good reason for thinking that. The only minister who appears very close to Starmer who might have responsibility for a major spending department is Wes Streeting, and what he has to say about the NHS is deeply depressing. His instruction is that we must accept the status quo, increase the scale of private sector involvement in the supply of health services, anticipate real-term cuts in funding, and face down the inevitable employment disputes that will arise as a consequence. Given that he is in a better position than anyone else to negotiate a sensible settlement with Starmer and Reeves, then heaven help everybody else. It looks like that for all new ministers their primary focus will be on who it is that they can sack from day one onwards.
Accepting that I could be entirely wrong, the question to then ask is what will the public's reaction to this be?
It is, of course, possible that in the short term they really will not care. Given how utterly disastrous the Tories have now proved themselves to be, anything might seem like a relief in comparison.
But, this is very unlikely to last for very long. The UK public are extremely fickle when it comes to their support for politicians, and I already suspect that Labour's internal polling will be showing them that much of their support is decidedly soft.
As many commentators here suggest, it is likely that many of those who would traditionally support Labour feel decidedly uncomfortable about doing so now. Instead, much of their support probably now comes from those who would normally have voted Conservative, but who appreciate just how extreme and incompetent those who lead that party now are. That does not suggest that those people have really changed their political persuasion or that they think that Labour really is taking the place of the Tory party that they once supported. They are simply voting in despair, just as those who traditionally supported Labour despair about who to vote for.
This combination could prove quite disastrous for Labour. If it becomes apparent within months of being in office that they really do not have a plan for government, let alone a plan for how to fund the improvement in government services that people in this country are desperate for, the number of people who will have a sense of regret about voting for them will be significant.
Labour could, of course, be planning for this and expect to play a long game, hoping that over the following years, events will turn in their favour, giving them the opportunity for re-election. I do, however, think that to do so would be naive. There are two reasons for doing so.
The first is that as anyone with any sense knows, the Tories and other far-right political parties will be working in close strategic alliance, supported by the well-funded Tufton Street think tanks, from the moment that the election is lost. They will be promoting an agenda of hate from then on, knowing that there will always be a certain part of the population that will support this, which part will be boosted in size if Labour appears incompetent once in office.
The other reason for doubting that Labour will necessarily survive the appearance of incompetence that they might create within months of being in office is the deeply embedded belief that appears implicit in Rachael Reeves' thinking at present. Everything that she does and says implies that she is of the opinion that the structure of the society in which we live is stable and without need to change. In fact, most of the few proposals that she has made are about reinforcing those structures. This is naive in the extreme. The reality is that our society is unprepared for the problems that it is now facing, and someone with Reeves' attitude is wholly unsuited to partake in the process of adaptation that is now necessary.
Every one of our major public services is failing. It is apparent that a little tinkering at the edges will not solve the problems inherent within them.
As is also now very obviously true that climate change is going to have a dramatic impact much sooner than most people ever expected. After the wettest, but warmest, history in the UK in 200 years we will face a food crisis this summer. A new dependency upon imports will put pressure on exchange rates, and prices, but there is no hint within her thinking of how we will address that issue.
Worse, she has already abandoned her commitment to a Green New Deal.
On top of that, her very obvious lack of willingness to believe in the power of government to effect change, because she is already outsourcing decision-making to as many establishment-populated quangos as she possibly can, makes clear that she does not even think the government should be seeking to tackle the changes that are so obviously required. Presumably, she believes that the market will address them.
My guess is that Starmer shares her views. He shows no apparent capacity for independent thinking.
It is only a question of when all this will become apparent after Labour gets into office. My suspicion is that it will only take months for this to happen. At that point, when possessed of a big majority, Labour will have three choices.
They could try to weather out the storm, which would be disastrous for us all. Action is required.
Alternatively, they could realise that they have no choice but change, and look for what other plans are on the table that they might adopt. This is when I hope that the thinking in the Taxing Wealth Report might be of benefit.
Otherwise, they might resort to the ruse that they are already using with regard to social care, and say that nothing can be changed on issues of this scale without cross-party support, on the basis of which they will try to blame everyone else for their failings even though it would be naive on their part to believe that anyone will think that claim to be credible.
In summary, Labour is likely to offer us turmoil whatever the outcome of the general election precisely because they appear to have no plans in place for what they might do if, as is overwhelmingly likely, they win it. That's not encouraging. Worse than that, rarely might there have ever been a greater opportunity lost, because that looks to be the prospect right now.
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:
When the UK desperately needs another Attlee and Bevan, principled visionary reformers, we appear likely to get two paranoid authoritarians who can be bought or bullied.
The Labour leadership appear to be calculating that there is more for them to gain from appealing to the middle ground or indeed natural Tory supporters than to lose on the left.
Perhaps traditional Labour supporters are thought to be too few, or have nowhere else to go, or are expected to hold their nose through traditional party loyalty. Again.
Firstly as the Conservatives are finding, it is easier to win votes in the Red Wall for one issue on one election than to retain those votes five years later. Many of the Reds who landed their votes to the Conservatives and voted Blue in 2019 for the first time will not do so again. They have got Brexit but it was not what they were sold, where are the so-called new hospitals, and “levelling up” is a pipedream.
Many Blues who might vote Red this time to get the incumbent incompetents out won’t do so in five years time. The Conservatives will reinvent themselves in opposition. Starmer should be thinking already, how can we win in 2029 or 2030?
But the more interesting question for me is whether traditional Reds either stay at home, or go elsewhere. I suspect the Greens may do much better than expected. And these Red voters who switch Green might not come back. Particularly if a Starmer government does what it says it will do: Neoliberal Toryism with a friendly face.
The problem, of course, is that a substantial increase in the number of votes received by the Greens in a General Election will amount to nothing more than a hill of beans as FPTP ensures that they don’t gain any real representation in parliament, even if they were to manage to pick up a few seats.
The ineptitude of the Labour leadership will be rewarded due to the ‘anyone but the Tories’ vote and, even if the LINO government turns out to be a disaster, you can be certain that those behind the scenes in the Labour Party will point to the middle-of-the-roadism of Starmer in the future to claim that this is the way to become elected. I’m never quite sure if it is stupidity or malice with the likes of Mandelson. Probably both. People who think they are very clever often tend not to be.
A Geen “hill of beans” is a positive as every vote a party get attracts findingm modest but not to be sniffed at. Also the more votes the higher the profile and the less the Greens are sidelined ignored riduculed etc.
Labour may not be so complacent if they lose a lot of council seats on 2nd May to Greens and LDs Their lack of coommitment to Green policies, proportional representation, support for nuclear weapons , Gaza genocide etc may cost them more than their belief in the status quo.
I think you may be right, but let’s see. Maybe we are an enclave of discontents here.
I can assure you that it isn’t just the ‘enclave’ on your blog that are discontents, Richard, I hear similar fears from most people I know (most of which are and mostly always have been Labour voters.
As an example, I was out walking with my regular walking buddy yesterday – also a solid Labour supporter – and we spent a long time talking about all the various aspects of the situation with Labour. We both agreed it appears to be deeply depressing. But his closing remark as I dropped him off later in the afternoon were telling, and apply to many people I suspect: ‘I have to hope that these (Starmers/Reeves, et als statements and positions) are just straw men to keep the Tory press happy and when they get elected we’ll see the real plans, even if they’re a rehash of Blair and New Labour. I have to believe that. The alternative is too dressing.’
Ps. You mention the situation with crops in your blog. I can tell you from what we saw yesterday across the prime farmland of the Trent valley that crop damage is severe.
I hear that depressed commentary from Labour supprters too often
And around here crops are simply not in the ground – and very soon it will be impossible to plant them this season
Given the lack of fundamental difference between the Neo-Liberal policies of Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems I think the elections in the USA will have more effect on Britain than the results of our General election.
If Trump wins then America will become a right-wing authoritarian regime, perhaps something like the right-wing dictatorships in Russia and Hungary. A Britain detached from Europe will be easy pickings economically and culturally.
If Biden and his progressive tinged neo-liberalism wins then there might be some hope, but I do not see how anything important can be changed unless the incoming government commits to replacing our First-past-the-post voting system and devolving power and greater financial autonomy downwards to Regions, Cities and Towns.
Interesting idea
I think First-past-the-post has to be the priority because it is the one measure that will prevent the Tories easily getting back into power in say 2029 and continuing what they have been up to in the periods 1979-97 and 2010-24.
It would be wrong to underestimate the problems around coalition governments but with an intelligent voting system I am sure progress can be made.
Without it we will be stuck with the four horsemen of the Neo-Liberal apocalypse, greed, ignorance, dishonesty and incompetence forever.
Question for Paul: when you wrote “…devolving power and greater financial autonomy downwards to Regions, Cities and Towns” did that include the devolved nations or were you writing about England only?
A widespread view in Scotland is that it doesn’t really matter how England votes, we’ll get a government the majority of us didn’t vote for. Scotland’s votes haven’t been decisive in Westminster elections for decades (if ever) and the appalling misgovernance of the UK in the last 30-to-50 years has only strengthened support for independence. Latest polls show a majority of Scots now support independence and demographic analysis shows that only the oldest age group favour remaining in the UK (the ‘aye-been’ mentality). The younger generations predominantly want independence and over time their views will become as the oldies die out. It seems likely that the SNP will get roughly the same number of seats as they currently hold. If the next election results in a hung parliament, I can’t see Tory or Labour forming a coalition that includes the SNP and the only way the SNP would agree to be part of such a deal would be an iron-clad route to independence, so it just isn’t going to happen.
Labour are making loud noises about regaining their “rightful majority” in Scotland, but they are no more interested than the Tories in maintaining devolution as is, never mind strengthening Holyrood’s powers, so I don’t see them gaining many Westminster seats other than at the Tories’ expense. It’s paricularly noticeable that nobody in Starmer’s cohort really understands Scotland, its politics, traditions and culture – and that includes their sole current Westminster MP who thinks wearing a Union Flag suit is a vote-catcher!
“Despair voting” appears to be the order of the day. We have to ask why. It seems not unreasonable to say the whole nation has become contaminated with this for the primary reason hardly anyone understands how the country’s fiat currency works and the role taxation plays in it. This has led to to an extreme and irrational thinking split between market and state perfectionists where the former have no idea market capitalism can only exist because of the “anchoring” role played by the state in private sector markets. This has to change hence Richard’s Herculean efforts to do so in this country!
https://lawandhistoryreview.org/article/forum-christine-desans-making-money-desans-response/
If Starmer and his gang pursue their current proposed path post election, more money for defence, ironclad support for genocide in Gaza and the West Bank, privatisation of everything else, they will be drummed out at the following general election and usher in a TuftonStreet/Truss/Braverman now we have only got 5 years to save the west bunch of total lunatics, who very definitely pursue a no holds barred extreme right wing agenda.
It can be said that Labour under Blair, Brown, now Starmer are either deliberate or unintentional liars in regard to misinforming the electorate how the UK’s fiat money system works. Either way what the country needs is a political party that does truly understand and the only one that appears to have the motivation to make the effort to properly understand because of its need to make a big public money spend is the Green Party. This means the party’s Thatcherite knuckle-draggers in key economic positions who continuously refuse to make the effort to fully understand the country’s fiat money system have to be removed from those positions by the membership. To do this there needs to be a core MMT teaching group built inside this party to decontaminate other members who still cling to Thatcherism/Neoliberalism. Once the party has done this it must next focus on how best to decontaminate the electorate.
LINO gets a very large number of MPs – 400.
SNP on 40, Lib-Dems on 50, others 50, Tories 90 (all numbers approx.
Most LINO MPs have no prospect of being ministers or indeed anything. Most of the people electing them want results – not LINO blather.
This opens the prospect for a serious LINO schism and a loss of its majority. This will get worse if it has a small majority.
Best outcome – hung parliament with LINO forced to work with ?? but who would want to work with them? The upper echelons are as demented as the Tories.
Starmer does not have “a cunning plan” – he (& LINO) is WYSIWYG.
Note that when the BTL in the Telegraph is saying nationalise water = even tory voters want that – it seems like a fairly easy (vote winning) action. That LINO has not taken it shows that they won’t when in office.
That’s possible
I wonder whether the flood of fund raising emails from Labour is a clue as to what might be happening. People just voting against the Tories to get them out rather than FOR Labour and its policies, are unlikely to be enthusiastic enough to put their hands in their pockets. Especially if the polls suggest that they don’t need to.
Then in time those same people may feel a lot less inclined to vote, for much the same reasons.
The big wave of disappointment is already on it’s way in so many ways and it really wouldn’t matter who was in power since they are virtually indistinguishable. Maybe they should just form one party and call it the Austerity Party. It wouldn’t change anything but at least that would be honest if nothing else.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/11/new-brexit-checks-to-cost-uk-business-2bn-and-fuel-inflation-report-finds
One question: if it costs business £2bn, does that money go to the exchequer for the ‘benefit’ of the country ?
As one of the ‘pocket of discontent’ I have serious doubts about Labour doing as well as expected, and I expect serious spin after the local elections. My own snapshot of ‘on the ground’ is that the party has shed many of its activists (the figures were always boosted by those in arrears/actually left), and the remainder have swallowed the Central Office Kool-Aid of ‘only focus on local stuff’. I found it astounding that, from our ‘Socialist Picnic’ group about half quit following hints from the constituency, and will NOT engage at all if asked about national/international issues. The regular Gaza stall run by local activists and the mosque had Tory and Lib councillors stopping to chat (and have a samosa) but passing Labour councillors wouldn’t engage, one telling us ‘I daren’t be seen supporting this’. The truth is, as said above, WYSIWYG. This will lose votes, and in FPTP, this could mean failure to gain previously expected seats.
Whilst this group might be a bunch of ‘discontents’, the views are probably reflective of many activists and those are the people parties rely on to leaflet, canvas, and get the vote out. Alienating them will affect the vote.
Agreed
Blimey this is pessimistic. I hope it’s wrong, I can see the risks though.
Those inside the Labour tent must know that whatever they do, they have to screw down the rabid Right, that it mustn’t ever again be allowed to wreck this country so completely on a minority of the vote.
Hopefully the Tories will be so smashed post election they’ll be too busy patching themselves up and electing unelectable leaders such as Braverman or Badenoch to bother Labour too much.
But Starmer must not make the same indulgent errors of Brown and Blair. Nothing is forever, unpredictable events will happen and the greatest risk to the wellbeing of the people of this country is always from the Right.
Braverman, Patel and Badenoch all have appeal in the Tory party and country. All could drive Labour further to the right. And with a Labour leadership without an apparent moral principle between them who knows what might happen?
It is not just commentators on this blog who are dissatisfied.
Have a look at the article by Stephanie Luke ” Do UK voters feel represented” dated 8 April on the UK in a Changing Europe website.
Ipsos did a survey for them.
Quoting from the article:
31% of voters do not feel represented by any of the main parties.
Voters sense of apathy reflects that Labour and the Tories are failing to deliver on issues that matter most to voters.
Few think think things will necessarily improve under Labour.
45% want electoral reform but neither Labour nor Tory are interested.
Thanks
I am in those groups
That only 45% want electoral reform suggests it would not be a winning strategy to push for it. Most of the country does not want it. It would be seen as deeply undemocratic to impose it without a referendum and yet a referendum would, if this figure is correct, fail to achieve it anyway. It would be a polarising disaster like Brexit.
Has the debate happened?
And have you noticed that FPTP imposes governments with much lower rates of support?
Your hypocrisy stands out a mile.
Reeves offers preaches economic growth and stability but offers no credible policy to deliver either. She boasts of being a Bank of England Economist but in my view that doesn’t say much for those on the recruitment panel that selected her and is nothing to brag about. She lies about the Tories being responsible for current interest rates when that is down to the BOE monetary policy committee, yet mainstream media let her get away with it unchallenged. I suspect that when the gullible realises that things aren’t changing, her failed promises will be the catalyst that triggers the meltdown.
@All – here is what I know as a Labour Party activist and branch officer in a wars that has been Tory for 50 years, a constituency that has been Tory for 2 decades.
At the local level we stand a chance of unseating the incumbent. At the general we have a very good chance of unseating the incumbent. Local and national are different.
Nationally, the Party obsesses about financial power in mainstream media. I argue we have feet on the street and that trumps money. I can prove that from doorknocking evidence.
The bigger problem is that while the Party is determined to win and is far from complacent about that prospect, the messaging around it is shockingly poor. Contrary to what Richard might think, internally, many of is think Streeting is a disaster with messages that annoy the left AND centre support. Quite the trick.
There is no doubt that Starmer is a firm leader but he’s slow to learn what a good message looks like.
The Party doesn’t se to fully appreciate the importance of the Muslim vote yet is prepared to sacrifice where it has massive majorities. That’s plain crazy and something I shout about all the time.
One problem is that the current cadre of candidates are largely acquiescent with what’s going on. It’s a problem because the left are not going to let a Labour government behave like Blair v.2 or Tory Lite.
However, on the plus side, Starmer and Rayner do have deep social consciences and have policies in mind that will help the disadvantaged. If, that is, they can get past the straightjacket Reeves is slowly tightening around us. But there, she at least ‘gets’ the case for investment. Even if she has no idea how to sell it to a Tory press.
Thanks, Den.
“However, on the plus side, Starmer and Rayner do have deep social consciences”
Is that a joke. They refused to call a ceasefire against genocide. 9000 children died in the time since. Honestly, I believe Starmer is evil and sinister. He keeps showing us, over and over.
Living in Wales under a Labour Government already I have zero confidence in a UK Labour government.
Welsh Labour spends all its time introducing vanity legislation, policy that is detrimental to Wales and wasting money. UK Labour looks the same. At the moment we have no one to vote for!
You are right to be sceptical.
Under Blair all new ministers did was throw their manifesto to their civil servants and say deliver me that.
Who now increasingly sub-contract to the consultancies.
The real question is what the consultancies plan for the UK?
Wes Streeting wiki says he spent a short time as a consultant with PwC.
This is their plan:
“As well as supporting post-pandemic recovery, we’re designing and delivering transformation and integration projects that have patient outcomes at their heart. We’re also supporting organisations through testing financial times, often developing bespoke operational and digital systems that can streamline services.”
That’s what’s driving things…Convinced , me neither.
Its the triumph of the lowest common denominator where difficult issues are sub-contracted. Its passive when active intelligence is required.
Richard, how on earth can we get Reeves to read ‘Doughnut Economics’ by Kate Raworth? You recommended it recently and I have been reading it avidly. If, as you say, Reeves doesn’t have a clue, maybe that might show her another way is not only possible, but essential if we are all to survive?
I wish I knew…
As Kate says herself, along with the likes of Steve Keen or Stephanie Kelton, we have generations of economists trained to think in a narrow and ultimately destructive way. They know nothing else. It’s become a religion.