BACKDROP OF SENTIMENTS
We are living in the most threatening and dangerous time of the last 75 years. Rational and objective proper consideration should drive voters, not emotive likes or dislikes. Who governs the UK has never been more important.
Unless a new black swan event emerges or Keir Starmer and his team collapse, it is a strong bet that a Labour majority will be the next rulers of the UK. It is just a question of what size of majority. There are no charismatic leaders: while the substance of Rishi Sunak is assessable, whether one is a fan or a detractor, it is less easy to assess the real Keir Starmer. Yet opinion about these potential leaders will be a strong determinant for many voters. And then there is an abiding feeling being pronounced in the media that many voters, while not necessarily thinking that Labour have answers and will achieve great things for the country, are fed up with the Conservatives and want to punish them for the country’s difficulties. The idea that it is time for a change of political tack, even if not convincingly for the better, has a momentum of appeal to a straightforward voter mind, coupled with a sprinkling of “they can’t do any worse” sentiment. But in theory, of course, they can.
The start of the campaigns has not yet winkled out what the two main protagonists really stand for, although some close similarities are emerging. It would be helpful for clear daylight between them to be established, and perhaps that can only be achieved by statements of clear principles or philosophies which underpin and which are reflected in policies. Those can only be embodied in bigger visions than either party is advocating, and a courage to face realities and the need for change which will require taking pain: that aspect of the necessary change is being studiously ignored which implies a cowardice which in turn will mean the electorate will vote on false premises.
WHAT IS THE BIG PICTURE?
It is hard to identify the principles and visions driving either party.
Conservatives are normally expected to stand at least for smaller state interference and spending; lower taxes; incentivisation of the individual to freely succeed and reap rewards of their labours; a kind and caring capitalism; pro City of London and finance; toughness on crime and big on national security and the military; reduced immigration; in recent years pro Brexit.
Labour traditionally stood up for socialist principles; defence of the working class (is there still such a thing?); employee rights; the sanctity of the NHS; equality; higher taxes; and as a result more spending on social benefits and assistance; less concerned with big military; disdainful of City and other wealthy people; an overriding principle being that the State is the fairest and best arbiter of what is good for people; pro EU.
As of today, Labour is positioning itself as the friend of businesses and of the City of London, and at the same time a proponent of improved worker rights; committed to not increase income tax, National Insurance, normal VAT or corporation taxes; a champion of the NHS but insisting it will only provide more money if the NHS changes in numerous ways including cooperating with the private sector. It still expounds a championing of workers, but of course all people in work are workers, and does “ workers” include the millions who are refusing to work or are addicted to benefits? Are they still about hammer and sickle workers or are the better paid, like train drivers or software writers, included? It is committed to the same military spend as the Conservatives. Yet Keir Starmer declares himself to be a socialist, and that he will not seek re-entry to the EU but wants closer cooperation. Labour has 5 objectives in its Mission Statement and only the next few weeks will show if policies and promises to implement them are doable. But what is the real vision?
On the other hand, the Conservatives have created a system of very high taxes; the State has become the solution to people’s problems due to the culture of Covid dependence; they call themselves champions of the NHS, having survived Covid and provided lots of money – and their commitment to reform of the NHS seems weaker than Labour’s! And the NHS is underperforming, nevertheless. The middle classes are squeezed in every way economically. The City of London is not enamoured of them; their commitment to law and order looks similar to Labour’s. They say there will be tax reductions and they too are committed to not increasing income or corporation taxes, VAT or national insurance, but are in favour of actually reducing national insurance. Yet Rishi Sunak declares himself a traditional conservative, and he has shown a willingness to compromise with the EU. But what is their real vision?
The one area where Labour is clearly standing by its principles of old is in applying VAT to private school fees. Maybe this is a precursor to abolishing private education, but they have said it is not. Is this policy misguided or even spiteful? The principal people being affected are those who are not especially rich but who have committed to the best education possible for their children at the expense of other spending choices, and who will be unable to afford the extra which this policy imposes. Meanwhile the truly rich will be unaffected and will pay the relevant extra bills, and any resultant spare places will be taken up by wealthy foreigners, some of whom will be undesirable entrants to the system. This is a punishment of parents who show grit and graft, and vision for their children. Does this indicate a trend by Labour to implement policy which is dictated by socialist dogma? Or the politics of envy? It would be nice to know the answer before the election.
Do the voters not need to see a focus on the big picture issues, global as well as domestic? Manifestos perhaps will reveal more.
GRIT AND GRAFT, NOT GAFFS, MATTER
Sherbhert in November 2023 wrote Affording the Unaffordable, which addressed the harsh realities that some policies being advocated both parties are unaffordable, which needs to be faced. If the parties and their leaders had the courage, it would be best if they could set out some clear vision of the big picture matters and then practical implementation of them. A few ideas follow.
Many people today accept the reality that Putin and so Russia, and President XI and so China, are not the Western democracies’ friends and are undermining them on a daily basis, and cyberspace is a key battlefield: war is a potential reality. A Financial Times leading article has explained the NATO view that it has only 5% of the necessary capability in air defence of the Eastern and Central European fronts. To make that up to a deterrent will be very expensive. UK forces are known to be too thin. If both Labour and Conservatives are committed to making UK defences effective, their commitments to increase spending by 2030 to 2.5% of GDP is both too slow and too little by a long way. They should both face this truth and make policy accordingly.
That is put first here because it further constrains thin budgets. With the pension age population increasing each year, and the working population decreasing, it is evident the future pension cost is unaffordable. The standard age for pension eligibility clearly must rise by a few years. Are pension triple lock policies of both parties really sensible, being designed really to keep on side the grey voters? Why should pensions rise with inflation if that is higher than the rise in wages for workers, making pensioners better off? Realities should be faced and principles applied accordingly.
The constant money demands of the NHS make it unaffordable. Labour’s recognition at last that the NHS must change its spots in many ways is welcome. But should not both parties be exploding the myth of the NHS sacred cow as a free service funded by taxes which are insufficient to do so, especially when social care, still not really funded, is lumped in? The principle of structural funding change surely needs at least to be on the table, but still both parties dodge the harsh reality for fear of media crucifixion for killing the holy cow, and so dooming the country to greater poverty to preserve a system that fails the public. Health experts have explained the need to refocus on preventing illness and diagnosis early, not just treating it. That is the really meaningful way to save a lot of money in the long run, not just by reducing the load on the NHS but also, by people being healthier, them being more productive and less a burden on taxpayers. It is about more scanners, but not primarily. It surely really means retraining the medical profession in nutrition, because the prime way, many a doctor says, of preventing debilitating and killer illnesses like cardiovascular disease and cancer is through nutritious diets. Will that truth be a focus in the manifestos?
That both parties commit to no taxation increases in income tax and corporation tax and national insurance, and VAT for the next 5 years seems ludicrous and just pandering for votes. Harsh realities will need facing. They should rather state an intention not to raise taxes, but a commitment, come what may, merely hamstrings choices. If a tax raise is needed in the interests of the country, it should be possible, say if extreme unforeseen events arise. Given these extreme policies, if more tax is needed, maybe wealth taxes are the only real ones available, which is contra Conservative principles but in tune with socialism. Unfortunately, a meaningful wealth tax is likely to drive away the wealth creators and so promote rapid decline in overall national prosperity. There are persuasive views that tax is in need of major reform, but the tax guarantees being given likely render that reform impossible.
The restoration of trust in politicians and their integrity should be a guiding principle for all. They will both perhaps espouse it but how will they promote it?
Arguably, the biggest challenge to be faced is the change in culture required in the country. Success historically is built on hard work, ingenuity, incentivisation of both of those, facing realities, and not bowing to those who would do you harm. A national pride has always been essential to succeed, along with respect for authority and the social fabric and glue which unites people. That glue has been allowed to melt as divisive minor causes have diverted attention from bigger realities, and national pride is treated by many, especially people who see themselves as more liberal and so-called progressive, as almost embarrassing and negative. Has any nation ever been successful without self-respect and real national pride? Replacing a culture of safety first and entitlement with one which embraces risk with courage and determination, and rewards personal individuality and responsibility should be a priority, whoever wins power. Rishi Sunak’s idea of national military and community service seems to have this in mind as well as a way of ultimately developing a meaningful defence reserve; but the media and opponents seem intent on dismissing and decrying it, rather than exploring how it could be used and refined for creating benefits, skills and discipline and national unity and caring. The alternative view is that national military and community service is totally ill-conceived. Whatever the case, real boldness to change culture in the UK is a priority challenge of principle.
Does this mean redefining the social contract between citizens with each other, and citizens with the State? That would be a telling manifesto item. Is the adage that we should consider “what we can do for our country rather than what our country can do for us ” worth some promotion? The sentiments and tenor of so much reporting and of voters’ views is that everything is a shambles and a disaster, an approach which takes us nowhere. Voters for this reason are heard in broadcasts to say that they will spoil their ballot papers, as a protest against the unattractiveness of politicians and the parlous state of the UK today.
This country perhaps needs a reality check to bring it back to facing up to the realities of the grit and graft it takes to succeed, and seeking sensible and serious solutions which may involve acceptance of pain now in exchange for comfort later, perhaps even for another generation.
So far, the media has made more of gaffs than the need for vision, grit and graft.
WHO CAN LEAD?
Both leaders face challenges. Rishi Sunak is undoubtedly clever, able to master a topic quickly and easily and hardworking, with a financial background in a cutthroat financial City world. Whether one agrees with them or not, his decisions as Chancellor during Covid were decisive, bold and had some success. But he became Prime Minister following the stupidity of the Truss experiment and he is tainted with the downfall of Boris Johnson and his stupidities. He also represents Tories whose mistakes over 14 years are easy to magnify, even if he was party only to some of them. He is associated with Brexit and therefore the narrative spun that the benefits and dividends have not materialised. He cannot be considered charismatic, and it is easy to set off any credit for recent economic improvement against a low base of growth. He at least has governing experience and is more of a known quantity. Because he is wealthy and has a public school background, it is easy to portray him as out of touch. Arguably the time and effort commentators spend on Rishi’s clothes and appearance may indicate they know more serious attacks would be hard to sustain. Perhaps, most damning of all for him, because so many Tory promises remain reversed or unfulfilled for reasons good or bad, voters may well judge any promises he makes, however valuable, as empty.
Keir Starmer evidently has talents. But they are talents developed as a lawyer and all that entails, very different to those required for visionary leadership. It is debatable how well advocacy for human rights and being a civil servant as chief Prosecutor, the DPP, equip a person for the exigencies of leader of the UK. Many admire the way he has purged and changed it seems the Labour party, or at least its people at the top, ousting the extreme left, demonstrating perhaps a tough mean streak. But he backed the antisemitic Corbyn, yet threw him out for that same antisemitism. Some call him flip-flop, because he announces one plan, and then reverses it, for example on abolition of student fees and his green energy pledge. He has reversed his anti-nuclear weapons stance and now advocates increased defence focus. His definition of a woman has moved with the tide of the media. Will he be able to handle the Unions when in power, they having stayed quiet pre-election with powder dry perhaps for later? Will his declared socialism override the freer market aspects of the pre-election presentations? He too is hardly charismatic. However, he seems to have an unblemished past. Nobody knows if he can hack it as Prime Minister, but that is always true of newcomer suitors for the job, like Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair. Perhaps he just has to avoid the gaffs, but it would be better if he demonstrated graft and grit as well as vision, so far lacking.
Will it all hinge in the end on who the voters think can bring economic success? Or will it simply be time for a change? Some consider the idea of 4 more weeks of daily electioneering more than they can stand, but this is perhaps the most threatening and dangerous time in the last 75 years. Rational and objective proper consideration should drive voters, not emotive likes or dislikes. Who governs has never been more important.
