CAN ANY ONE PERSON DO THE PM’s JOB TODAY?
The perilous storm into which the new leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister will sail is surely unlike anything any such person has had to face since Winston Churchill. That there were so many candidates is a plus and a minus, and judgement on how any of the candidates would perform the role is surely a leap of faith to a considerable degree. The choice has been whittled down to two, Rishi Sunak or Liz Truss.
At the best of times the complexity of the PM’s job must not be underestimated. The sheer volume of decisions to be made on a daily basis would overwhelm most people. The sheer weight of the consequences of some decisions would terrify many. Great intuition as to risk and dangers, and the ability to grasp the heart of issues quickly will be essential, as will learning quickly and learning from mistakes, and listening and communicating both within Government and publicly.
The supporters of Rishi Sunak, Penny Mordaunt, Liz Truss, Kemi Badenoch and Tom Tugendhat all saw promising features in their respective candidates. That they are all so sure they are the right person to Captain the ship in this storm is a tribute to their courage and self-confidence, but in some cases may be a wrong assessment of their ability to serve the country as leader at this toughest of moments. The two chosen by Tory MPs now must put their case to the Conservative Party members. Those members will then decide the leader they deem appropriate to guide the UK through a possibly existential war in Europe, dealing with the existential threat of climate change risks and influencing the world to follow a UK lead; towards economic prosperity in a global economic crisis, and to a renewed national culture of trust, mutual respect and taking responsibility. Perhaps neither of the remaining candidates, and indeed no person, is equipped to address the seriousness of so many issues. The most important characteristic may prove to be the ability to choose the most talented team as Cabinet and Ministers, to create a can-do unselfish culture within government, to let them deliver and keep the public united and committed to overcoming the challenges. The crew will be as critical as the Captain. It must be remembered that it is the British businesses, the public and institutions who will beat the storm, and Government can only provide support and an environment to maximise the chances of doing so.
The coming vote by Conservative members is a massive burden and responsibility on their shoulders. They owe a weighty duty to the UK as a whole to discard any pettiness personal and prejudice and make a hard-nosed judgement of who can best steer the ship to calmer waters.
POSITIVES, NEGATIVES, LEARNINGS AND OUTCOMES OF THE ELECTION PROCESS
It is is regrettable that a new leader is needed at such a time of trauma, but this process is an opportunity for unity and renewal, see Sherbhert article The Prime Minister’s Departure. Opponents fairly lament that the current “interim” Government is putting progress on hold until 5 September, when the result will be known. It is a plus perhaps that this is occurring during summer holidays, and the process is relatively fast.
It is surely a positive too that the candidates illustrate that diversity is alive and well. There were six candidates of colour or immigrant backgrounds in the original eleven and three in the last five. There were four women in the original eleven, and three in the last five. While extremists may brand those of colour as “coconuts”, the diversity lends evidence against the theory of the UK being systemically racist, which it patently is not.
The election process requires candidates to differentiate themselves, and there is an inevitable amount of emphasising opponents’ weaknesses, as well as immodest aggrandisements of personal talents and achievements. In fact, there is far more that unites the candidates than divides them. However, elements of the Conservative Party, and as with the public this tends to be the usual vocal small minority, have sought excessively to diminish and insult candidates they do not prefer. That belittling, promotion of division, is not just negative for that Party but also further damages the public perception of politicians. Do not the British public in fact find personal attacks a put off? It is to be hoped that the two remaining candidates can restrain themselves and their supporters from knocking copy of the competitor, focussing on substance of how they will provide a structure and policies to support the people of the UK in overcoming the perilous storm. Once the PM is chosen, it is incumbent on Tory MPs truly to be unanimous in their support.
Perhaps the most concerted insulting aggression has been reserved for Penny Mordaunt as flaky and incompetent, but Liz Truss has been trashed for her woodenness and lack of brain power at least, and Rishi Sunak as wealthy (as if that is a crime), a traitor to Boris Johnson and the cause of recession. It is hard to find any truth in the excessive offending, as the bias or enmity which underpin it detract from its validity. Matthew Parris of the Times in his scathing assessments of Mordaunt and Truss illustrates the point. The politics of hatred, of dismissing the views of others and of mere assertion dressed up as fact have been undermining the culture of free speech and tolerance, and respect for others, which is so fundamental to the UK’s success in the past and in the future, to making the UK a “good place to live”. For the remainder of the election, it would be good to see those positive values in action.
Once the candidates were down to five, TV “debates” got the attention. So loved by broadcasters, they proved that their purpose was more to humiliate and diminish candidates rather than elicit their real qualities. While they achieve an upping of profile of the lesser known for those who watch them, a small percentage of the population, do they ever bring out true talent or reveal real weaknesses, as they are such a contrived environment?
The first on Channel 4 added little to policy knowledge, and was used principally to serve the ego of the presenter and co-ordinator who treated it more like a game show, without any respect for the participants, and as a vehicle for his own random opinions. The next on ITV was barely much better. The candidates were induced into embarrassing and unnecessary sniping by the nature of the questions and presenter’s patronising approach to these people who at least by comparison with that presenter have some substance. The shallowness and pointlessness was illustrated by the question ”who of you would have Boris Johnson in your cabinet”. Put up your hands “children”. No takers. Then, to stop comment, ITV went to the break. Was the cheap purpose of such a question to advance viewers’ knowledge? Would any incoming Prime Minister give an important post to the resigning predecessor? Is it any wonder that at least Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss refused to subject themselves to further flagellation and the third such debate was cancelled?
And so to policy. There seemed to be complete agreement among candidates that the UK economy needs fixing in the light of the economic global earthquakes caused by the pandemic and its aftermath, Putin’s evil war and the energy crisis. All thought lower UK taxes are desirable, but with variance on their impact and timing; that inflation needs taming; and that growth and a hike in UK productivity are the necessary answers; that some levelling up needs delivery.
Candidates, their supporters and the die-hard Tories frequently invoked Thatcherism, and some like William Hague in the Times propose what Thatcher would have done as if that would therefore be right. This obsession with Margaret Thatcher seems so regressive and inappropriate, arguably irrelevant. Those who advocate her deity demonstrate an inability to move on. Her decisions and actions, right or wrong, were in a time light years from the modern world. The circumstances are so different. A great many voters barely know who she was as they were not born or were children at her time. She was deeply disliked by many. Harking back to Thatcher is not a unifying strategy or a good argument for anything. Enunciating and sticking to coherent and sensible principles could be.
Some politicians and commentators cannot resist harking back to Brexit and how the UK would be better off if it never happened. Others define candidates by their Brexit credentials. There is no consensus. Should not Brexit now be written out of discussion. It is a fact that the UK is no longer part of the EU, for better or worse. Even Tony Blair accepts that the challenge is to make the best of it and work towards the UK thriving. A good relationship with the EU is clearly a common-sense economic goal and a “must” for mutual security. Putin has put democracies and that security in jeopardy. This issue, not Brexit, should be top of the agenda.
All candidates put as a priority increasing substantially UK growth economically, and also productivity. The question is how?
“STAGNATION NATION”
The Resolution Foundation, supported by other economy think tanks, has recently published a book “ Stagnation Nation”, an interim report as part of The Economy2030 Inquiry, focussed on the state of the UK economy and the changes it faces. That the UK is in an economic slow lane is clear. See Economy2030
Without seeking to assess the validity or correctness of the Report, its politics or recommendations, a few observations prompted by it occur. It may be worth a read, or even just its summary.
First some of the facts it states: low-income households in the UK are 22% and 21% worse off than those in France and Germany respectively. UK productivity is 16% less than Germany’s – some £3,700 lost output per person. Income inequality in the UK is said to be wider than any other major European country. For example, London is 45% more productive than Manchester, and all big UK cities, bar London, are less productive than the average across the country. Major strengths of the UK are its services sector – the UK is the second biggest exporter of services in the world, after only the USA. As a manufacturer, the UK is a small global player (only some 8% of UK employment is manufacturing), but it is a leader in certain fields such as drinks, aerospace and certain pharmaceutical areas.
It seems clear that to succeed the UK should focus on what it is good at. If big cities’ productivity can be materially increased, then that should have a major positive impact, from a low base. Perhaps, a clear human capital strategy has to be enunciated and implemented. Does not levelling up and some already announced initiatives make a start in this way? But so little has been achieved. The Report suggests that business culture, management quality and financing need attention and improvement, and it’s not just about tax incentives. Cannot Government put in place incentives to encourage productivity universally but especially in big cities? Cannot businesses share fully with workers the benefits of improved productivity? The Report sees growth and reducing inequality as keys to improvement, among other things. It would be good to witness leadership candidates enunciating in more detail their long-term answers for all such issues in the coming weeks: a proper debate about how to get the country bought into growth, even with short term pain for long term gain. The UK must cease to live in the stagnation it has become accustomed to since the financial crisis of 2008. And optimistic words will not do it without substance.
NOT JUST A PM – ITS ABOUT THE TEAM
War in Europe; protecting values and freedoms; facing and reversing climate change; solving future energy needs on a global basis; and restoration of the UK and global economy to health and so wealth – these are truly mega issues.
Whoever becomes the next UK leader must surely make these a priority the impact on which must be part of any decision. The big issues need focus, and the minor can be left to smaller forums. That leader must engage the whole country, every sector, in these issues, to work together with common purposes to bring UK success. The aim must not be to please and placate, except by delivering truly made doable promises.
This will perhaps need not just a strong, wise, decisive and honest PM, but also a cabinet and Ministerial team who are strong, independently minded and trusted people, capable together of decisive action based on facing honestly the facts, with transparent analysis and yet more wisdom.
The Team is perhaps the answer. The PM’s biggest task will be forming the right one, holding it together and then delivering the promises. But first the whole of the UK must hope that Conservative members discharge their duty faithfully and expertly.
