The Labour party under Sir Keir Starmer is often accused of being too Conservative; however it is their conservatism that could be their undoing.
Yesterday, it was announced that Labour were scaling back their pledge to invest £28bn in a green prosperity plan. This unfortunately coincided with the announcement that the world had crossed the 1.5oC milestone, a threshold which participants of the Paris Climate Agreement aimed to avoid. The timing of this announcement is not only damaging for the party, but casts into stark relief the dangerous lack of meaningful action to avert climate catastrophe. While this is worth its own discussion, there is also a need to discuss the political implications of this move. It not only solidifies Labour’s appearance as a party with no meaningful policy ambitions but could indicate how their Government could eventually end.
In their desperation to avoid losing their surprising rise from 2019’s electoral disaster to clear favourites in the next election just 4 years later, Labour seem to be employing a strategy of avoiding rocking the boat. This has worked for some time, allowing them to project calm competence in the face of Conservative mayhem. Their initial policy announcements including the green pledge and universal childcare struck the right balance between radical reform and sensible management. There was a recognition that uprooting the UK’s systems primarily through increased nationalisation is not feasible and not popular, but that there are certain focused areas where a reassessment of our structures are warranted. Yet over time, that initial mentality of avoiding conflict has seen every policy idea that hints towards making meaningful change fall by the wayside.
This strategy is predicated on the idea that Labour are guaranteed to win the next election if they do nothing to upset anyone. They want to remove any bold policies that can be criticised and leave swing voters second guessing their fiscal responsibility. The mentality from Rachel Reeves’ office is that any policy announcement is tightly controlled and must prove to be budgetarily neutral or positive in cost. Labour’s decision to tinker around the edges of existing structures that are failing to deliver is also driven by an authentic lack of ideas they believe are feasible. Their reliance on think tanks such as Labour Together and Tony Blair institute comes from a lack of resource in the party whose operatives are focused more on winning the election, hammering the Conservatives, and preventing Labour blunders.
One of the greatest tragedies is these ideas that they have rolled back have genuine merit. The concept of a green industrial revolution, investing in making Britain a leader in green energy, makes both political and fiscal sense in the long term. But with a public bruised from high energy prices throughout the last 18 months, any policy on this will prove unpopular in the short term, as proven by the backlash against ULEZ. Therefore, Labour have decided that they need to prove their fiscal responsibility and keep costs down for the majority of people if they want to win the next election. Perhaps they are right, that through mediocrity they can overcome a deeply troubled Conservative Party. But the question that is not being asked enough is “what’s next”?
When in Government, Labour will not have any clear policy ambitions to deliver on. Their support will be tepid due to their lack of inspirational policies that motivate people to advocate for them. And their majority will likely be small; while they are leading significantly in the polls, the swing required to achieve a Labour majority is monumental. The party may be in Government, but their support in the parliament and out will be limited. If they continue on this path of lacking ambition in their policies, there is a strong chance they may lose a 2029 election. This would hardly be the Labour dynasty Sir Keir would hope for and would risk allowing the country to drift back into Conservative hands.
This is not to say that Labour do not have the potential to be an effective Government, or that success would come from taking a more radically left-wing approach. This was proven to be ineffective under Corbyn which paved the way for the tumultuous premierships of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss. But there is a need for a few policies that show a quality needed in any electorally successful party: a vision. Labour are currently sorely lacking in this, preferring to have no vision over one that can be critiqued. This short-term thinking will not only cause the party future electoral heartache but will also leave the British people with no meaningful reform to a country which is clearly failing on several fronts.
A strategy which chooses a couple of key tentpoles, along with pledges to incrementally improve other facets, would be well received during the election and achievable during in Government. There is still a slim chance that a manifesto would include this, but the current mood of the party seems to not be in favour of this hope. Without a rethink of their strategy, Labour could lose out in the long run.
Comentarios