Election Watch #2: Starmer is right about what electors want ...
... but governing from the centre will not address any of the problems we face
Two weeks ago today, when the Prime Minster surprised everyone by announcing a July election, I was tempted to start writing immediately. I even had a headline in mind:
‘Sunak rather than later’
Perhaps it was best to hold fire.
I do, however, plan to resurrect my Election Watch series over the remaining weeks of the campaign, if only to demonstrate (1) how unfit for purpose we’ve allowed our democratic institutions to become and (2) how both the politicians offering themselves for election, and many of the voters who will elect them, are disturbingly detached from reality.
Two weeks into a six week campaign, anyone with half a brain and an ounce of concern for the future prospects for Britain, and indeed the wider world, must be desperately worried by the chasm between what politicians are talking about and the kind of conversations we should be having if we are to address the multitude of problems facing the world. It seems that the longer democracy endures, the poorer the quality of political debate becomes, especially at election time.
But at least an election campaign provides plenty of hooks for stories. So let’s begin with something Keir Starmer said in a speech last weekend.
‘As a nation, broadly speaking we’re a pretty reasonable, tolerant bunch but we are in the centre ground of politics. People don’t like the extremes of the right or the left. They are reasonably tolerant. They want themselves, their families and the country to improve and make progress.’
I think Starmer starts and ends well here. I agree that most Brits, like most people in most countries, are reasonable and tolerant. Of course, they want the country to improve and make progress. I suspect I also agree with Starmer on the meaning of progress: He has in mind a less unequal society in which more people enjoy greater economic security; a country more at ease with itself. All good.
I also agree with him that most people are wary of the extremes of right and left, although I think more people fear the extreme left, and are rather naive when it comes to the far right. The likes of Nigel Farage, Suella Braverman and Liz Truss, were they ever to form a government, would represent a far greater threat to the country and it’s prospects than Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell and Diane Abbot.
There’s a strong didactic aspect to Starmer’s claim that ‘we are in the centre ground of politics’. People like to be guided. After years during which the centre had been derided from the left and the right, people want to know that it’s okay to be reasonable and moderate in their political beliefs. Starmer also knows that elections in Britain are nearly always won from the centre (I include Margaret Thatcher’s three victories in this: today’s Conservative Party makes her very definitely a politician of the centre). Starmer has staked his claim to the centre ground and spent the last three years proving his credentials. I have no doubt the strategy will reap dividends come election day.
But successfully claiming the centre ground for electoral purposes and governing from the centre once elected are quite different things. I’m talking here, principally, about the centre in terms of economic policy. As regular readers will know, I strongly believe the economy and how it’s managed largely determines everything else that a government can do. And it’s absolutely clear that Starmer will not be able to repeat the ‘economic miracle’ of the early part of the Blair/Brown administration. The Tories have left the UK economy in a such parlous state; turning it around will require much more than a return to conventional centrist economic management.
Yesterday’s report from the resolution foundation will have made sobering reading for Starmer and his putative Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves. It suggests that the Labour (and Tory) obsession with reducing the national debt could require cuts to public services totalling £33 billion over the next five years. Clearly this is impossible if the social fabric of the country is not going to be torn to shreds. There are two ways to deal with this:
One way would be to forget about the onerous fiscal rules under which politicians of both parties place themselves, often for purely ideological reasons, and hope the economy will spark into life, thus providing increased tax revenues with which the debt can be paid down. This is risky on several fronts: The UK economy has shown few signs of sparking into life since the financial crisis of 2008. And if it doesn’t, and the national debt continues to grow, the financial markets will make life very difficult for the government, ultimately forcing another period of austerity. This would further consolidate the trend established over the last four decades towards an entirely finance-driven economy safeguarding only the interests of the minority of the populations who are asset-rich. For the majority, it would mean further reduced economic security, and an even smaller share of the crumbs that fall from the table of those that rule the economic roost.
Or: the new government could spend it’s first year in office conducting a thorough assessment of the impact of four decades of ideology-soaked neo-liberal economic policy, and say: enough is enough. If we are going to create a more inclusive society; if we are going create a country in which more people enjoy economic security, can afford a home, no longer have to rely on foodbanks and charity handouts, if we are to have a hope in hell of tackling mass-migration, regional wars and the civilizational threat of climate change, then we need an economy fit for those purposes. This doesn’t mean a return to the post-war corporatism that enabled Europe to rebuild itself in the unique situation it faced post-1945, nor does it mean a economy in which the underlying structures are left unchanged but high-earners and business profits are taxed punitively to provide for the basic needs of those for whom the economy excludes. But it does require changes to the configuration of the economy on a scale similar to those made in the 1980s by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. And the guiding objective for these changes should be to wrest economic power back from the financial markets so that governments can pursue policies that benefit the interests of all their citizens.
‘Give me some examples of what this means in practical terms,’ I hear you cry. Well, I’m already way over my planned word count for this piece, but between now and the election I’ll be working on a essay which sets the parameters for a review of the failures of the neo-liberal project, and the policy implications going forward.
A further period of austerity in Britain is quite unthinkable. And while I understand why Starmer and his team will do anything to avoid rocking the boat in the run up to the election, Britain’s future depends on them rolling up their sleeves and setting out to re-write the economic rulebook the day they the walk into No 10.