Economics: Probably the Tories went off the rails when they voted to get rid of Iain Duncan Smith and embraced the “Euroskeptic” anti-immigrant “law-and-order” Michael Howard—decided that the Tory Party’s position should shift away from the claim that they would be better managers of a Blairite government than the Blairites and toward the claim that Little England was under threat from immigrants, Londoners, London immigrants, the French, and Pakistanis. Since then, enemies foreign and domestic, austerity, and tax cuts for the rich have been their only “policies”. And, of course, Nick Clegg, shamefully, acted like a Nick Clegg. And so here Britain is now.
I understand why Martin Wolf writes: “Starmer presumably feels that leaving the governing party to conduct its circular firing squad is wise politics. But it is also likely to be foolish strategy. He is not going to have a mandate for the radical changes that are necessary…” But I am afraid I disagree:
If Starmer actually has the debate to try to build a mandate, he will fail to gain a mandate—vested interests and rent-seekers will be alarmed and countermobilize.
If Starmer actually has the debate to try to build a mandate, he may lose the election—combine those who think Labour will gore their ox and those who fear enemies foreign and domestic with those who believe what they read in the Telegraph, and Tories might be able to squeak through with a plurality.
Post-installation, a Prime Minister has much more power to shape the debate over policy and assemble a coalition than one does while one is still merely the Leader of the Opposition.
Wolf’s quote from Bootle and Vitali seems to me to be key: “early success and a compelling vision” is the only effective way to possibly get something substantial done. Hence Starmer should be thinking really hard about (a) what his early success will be, if the world shifts in a better direction, and (b) what compelling vision that should then feed into:
Martin Wolf: The elusive search for economic transformation: ‘If the UK’s real gross domestic product per head had continued on its 1955-2008 path, it would now be 39 per cent higher… dreadful…. Roger Bootle and James Vitali…. 10 lessons: a strategy is needed; transformation requires a package of measures; fiscal prudence… necessary, but not… sufficient… low inflation… helpful, but not decisive; tax can matter, but not always; high rates of investment are critical… fierce competition… microeconomic measures; strong leadership, but with a team… and, finally, both early success and a compelling vision…. [UK] savings are staggeringly low…. Competition does not seem to be anything like as strong as one would wish…. Microeconomic reforms… must be made… planning reform… land. Needless to say, the failure to deal with this binding constraint had nothing to do with membership of the EU….
Perhaps the most depressing aspect of the current debate is the huge gulf between the urgency of the situation and the response. The bigger the challenges, the more timid politicians seem to have become. Worse, Brexit and a host of cultural and identity issues have taken almost all the air out of the needed debate on the country’s economic future…. Starmer presumably feels that leaving the governing party to conduct its circular firing squad is wise politics. But it is also likely to be foolish strategy. He is not going to have a mandate for the radical changes that are necessary… <ft.com/content/ac3932ff…>
