I was fortunate to see both my sons on Father's Day. We don't go overboard about such events, since as a family we value 365 day-a-year relationships more than commercially-created events. The fact both happened to be at home was a bit of a coincidence in that case.
That said, this was a time for discussion. Brothers caught up with where they are in life and both questioned me as to my plans. I think both want to know whether I really do want to keep going as long as possible, to which the answer is most definitely yes. If anything, the current election campaign is providing me with massive motivation to do so.
I am now taking it as a foregone conclusion that Labour will win this election. Absolute disasters from Labour apart, and so far they appear to be managing a well-controlled campaign, the only unknown factor to consider is just what the impact of Farage will be. I won't even call it Reform, because it is not that: this is a one person show. The existence of this opportunity for a protest vote is hitting both leading parties, but I suspect that the marginal impact on the Tories is bigger than on in Labour, whilst Reform's gains will be vey limited. Nothing does, therefore, change my expectation.
In that case, I admit that my thinking is moving on. If, as I expect, Labour is in government but unable to govern because Rachel Reeves will not let them do so due to her commitment to balancing the Treasury's books, what happens then? It seems to me that this is now the most important political question in this country, even if it will take a number of months for it to move centre-stage following the election.
My suspicion is that Starmer, ruthless as he is for power, will only tolerate Reeves for so long. She might have had the discipline he required to get Labour to power, but events will demand that he change strategy within the first two years at most of the coming parliament. He will then give Reeves a choice. She either has to change tack, as Gordon Brown did after two years in office, or go. Either way he will demand a much more amenable Chancellor. It is Torsten Bell, recently departed from the Resolution Foundation and now expected to be a Swansea MP, who I think might be in the running at that time. As former Chief of Staff to Ed Miliband, he already knows his way around. Whilst he is still right of centre, I suspect he understands both politics and economics better than Reeves. Equally, I could be wrong. Someone else might be the challenge to Reeves, but of the likelihood that there will be one, I am certain.
So, what then? The simple fact is that the policy-free Labour Party that is going to win this election will either have to develop some ideas to sustain it through to the next general election and beyond or it is going to suffer the biggest political car crash in history, to follow on from its likely historic win. A one-term landslide could be Starmer's legacy unless he does so.
So what might he have to do. I offer this list, which is not intended to be complete:
1) Retake control of the Bank of England to prevent a mortgage and rent crisis. Their plan to keep rates high for as long as possible is unsustainable. The Bank either listens to pressure that will be brought to bear on it and succumbs, or it loses its independence.
2) Starmer has to nationalise water and maybe more. The National Grid may be the obvious next candidate given its current refusal to do anything to let a green transition happen. This will be about necessity.
3) He will have to invest. My suggestion is that what I am now thinking of as Regional Investment Banks in the case of English areas, and National Investment Banks in the case of Scotland, Wales and Northern. Ireland - the latter under devolved control - will be key to this, as will be my idea that ISA funds and part of pension contributions be used to fund these essential hubs to deliver new investment in the economy. The policy adds up on this basis - and could be a real winner for Labour.
4) He will have to tackle the problems in public services - and concede pay rises, or that end to his premiership after one term is a certainty. This will include considerably more funding to local authorities as they go bust.
5) He will also have to tackle poverty, which will require aggressive redistribution of wealth through taxation of high earners and unearned income.
I am aware that I am not alone in thinking along these lines. From my perspective, the first, third and fifth are firmly in areas I have worked on, and I have more than touched on the rest.
The problem for Labour is that almost none of their own think tanks have really thought of anything very much at all. The whole focus has been on getting the Tories out, and thereafter playing within the Tory Overton Window. They are, therefore, ill prepared to out forward almost any ideas: doing so has not been demanded of them. In contrast, I have been working on solution-focused ideas for a long time.
So, the opportunity for others to do so exists. I intend to be around to do so. That's what I told my sons, and I have no other plans of any sort.
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:
Re nationalisation – how will we pay to do this? (Genuine question) It just all seems far to big to tackle and suspect short termism will win out, sadly
Have you read what I have written about this?
And what would you prefer? A country without water? How long do you think that would last?
In the same way that we paid to end slavery – by issuing interest-bearing government debt securities that will be refinanced so many times we will forget why they were created. (And even when we claim to have finally “paid it off”, the nominal amount of public debt will increase because they will just be refinanced.)
Hi Sheila.
Assuming that you are a new visitor here, and not a concern troll, I will leave you a link to a recent video short that Richard made:
“Nationalisation does not cost taxpayers anything”
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2024/06/16/nationalisation-does-not-cost-taxpayers-anything/
and direct your attention to the menu at the top of the page, wherein you will find “KEY RESOURCES” ‘How to pay for it’, and a Search function which returns 18 pages of hits on a search for ‘nationalisation’
Happy reading!
Thanks
Thanks too for your patience….
Thank you, Sheila.
In good faith, may I ask you if you ask this question when money is asked for war?
Torsten Henricson-Bell will certainly arrive on the Labour front bench at the first available opportunity. Chancellor of the Exchequer is possible before the next election but there are other candidates – typically with Oxford PPE and/or LSE masters; examples include Yvette Cooper and Anneliese Dodds. The Conservatives may have had three women PMs and the first woman as lord chancellor, and it would be good to see Labour getting the first and second women Chancellors of the Exchequer (to go with the first woman as home secretary and foreign secretary).
As I understand it Bell studied history at Oxford but his Treasury and opposition advisory experiences should stand him in good stead (and perhaps being outside the bubble of academic economics may serve him well).
It is obvious that the small, cautious measures outlined in the Labour manifesto has little chance of triggering any resurgence of “growth” (whether or not we think increase of a single flawed statistic such as GDP is the most important thing in the world). That will become clear in a short time and then action will be required. One hopes Labour will not waste too much time waiting for Godot.
(There must be some mileage in a skit of Keir and Rachel as Vladimir and Estragon. “Let’s go.” “We can’t.” “Why not?” “We’re waiting for [growth].”)
Politicians keep on about “growth”. I want to ask: growth of what? Growth of the NHS? Growth of local transport? Growth of education? Growth of environmental awareness? Growth of employment opportunities?
Naw.. probably just GDP in the time old con trick that involves.
Thank you, Richard.
I feel your campaign and this community is just getting started.
Good point about Reeve. My preference would be Miatta Fahnbulleh or a rehabilitated Faiza Shaheen.
Off topic, but may be not. A friend, a Dub, was recently at Iveagh House, which I won’t explain as I would like readers to search online for what it is and means, and heard from a diplomat that feelers are coming from north of the border about loyalism becoming a cultural, no longer political, movement and loyalist leaders voting in the interests of their grandchildren should a border poll be called.
Are, even. I apologise profusely to Richard for my poor grammar.
@Colonel Smithers,
I googled, I researched, I learned. No problem with any of that but please remember that “Funding The Future” has many non-UK consumers-posters and gains more each day. Much have what Richard opinionates on is transferable to many countries. It is especially transferable to Yanks as the US has many of the same problems as the UK but for different reasons. Etiology aside, the problems are still the same.
“A friend, a Dub”; Is a “Dub” a person from Dublin or Dubai? Just want to make sure I get it correct as I have more chance of running into someone from Dubai than I do Dublin in sunny Florida.
Thank you.
Yes, of course.
Dub(lin).
I’m glad your are piping up from Florida. You may recall Newtie’s Contract With, or should that have been On, America. Farage has just published his contract with the UK. It feels like a hit job on order.
‘dub’ as a verb means to use a sword to confer a knighthood! Or to add a voice-over (usually in a different language: or as a deep fake?!)
As a noun, it can mean various things, some associated with reggae culture and the smoking habits thereof… 🙂
I should have added that what Richard has written fits with what older and wiser civil servants are saying. Labour’s expected big majority is an irrelevance as crises engulf the country. The majority was compared to winning a pageant on the Titanic.
A Foreign Office official friend, ex City and neoliberal, was at home for a couple of days and said the officials she comes across tend to lean Labour and wonder if Labour understands the scale of the situation. My friend just thinks of neoliberal solutions whereas her colleagues want a more active state.
Labour may win the election but we can try to stop individuals like Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting from winning their seats and better still stop Starmer from winning his. We may need to start thinking about damage limitations.
It’s a bit late – the candidates have all been declared!
I would certainly like to see Feinstein beat Starmer!
@Colonel Smithers,
It took about 3-4 years but Newt got his ar$e handed to him on a silver platter and I think the same thing will happen to Lord Farquhar Farage. Farage seems to draw his support from a group of people who thought BREXIT was the answer, have basically lost all hope and do not know what to do get the “England” they want. These people have a lot in common with the MAGAts in the USA.
Latest from Jonathan Pie on Farage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwIa70EDZjE
Its worth following events in France.
One issue to emerge is that the French hypothecate Savings for social purposes. ie social housing and care homes. Thus they can fund higher levels of social investment.
Its hinted at in your point three but it could be expanded as a source of investment funding
Agreed
Rachel Reeves is singularly unimpressive. We need someone with vision and new ideas, not a glorified civil servant there to follow rules dictated by others. What about Darren Jones? He seems bright, articulate and represents the area he grew up in?
It’s a very odd campaign. We are seeing far too much of Wes Streeting and very little of Yvette Cooper and David Lammy.
I’d love to see the Labour party replace Kier Starmer, but unlike the Tories they are generally nicer to their leaders. Someone like Andy Burnham who builds relationships and consensus rather than this horrible adversarial politics would be great.
Darren Jones is hardcore neoliberal