People are now beginning to develop their reflections and analysis from the recent General Election. In terms of trying to piece together what went wrong and what they might need to change for the future, the big focus is on the Conservatives following their heavy landslaide defeat. So, it might seem strange to be asking similar questions about the centre left and Labour giving their record breaking result. However, if Starmer’s victory was one,of if not, the biggest in history, it was also the most disproportionate. Labour won two thirds of the seats on one third of the national vote.
It could be argued that Labour did not so much win the election as the Tories threw it away. Not only did they lose a lot of seats to the Liberal Democrats and 4 to Reform but Reform UK were probably the difference between victory and defeat for the Tories in about 80 seats. It is perhaps that fact which lead Rishi Sunak to believe that a hung parliament was possible if private polling was indicating that the top line figures were not as robust for Labour as the polls were suggesting.
All of this means that Labour are still a long way away from a true recovery in their heartlands and may be as vulnerable to a swing against them should the centre right get their act together next time and/or should the far and radical left learn from the French left and get more organised next time. Labour could find themselves squeezed in 20299 by either a resugent Conservative Party or and entrenched Reform and the re radical left. This will be particularly the case if they fail to deliver and so let down traditional red wall supporters and the more EU friendly centre ground.
All of this means that Labour has big challenges to face. There is one more. Labour have based a lot of their appeal on the claim that the Tories crashed the economy and that they’ve inherited the worst economic circumstances ever. This is an understandable and common tactic but is a long way from being true. Labour come in as the economy is recovering back to growth and inflation is coming down. Interest rate cuts are expected to come in the summer which will boost the feel good factor and this combined with recent cuts to National Insurance may well begin to help people feel like the worst of the Cost of Living crisis is over.
At the same time, the economic situation is not as good as it was in 1997, partly because Labour are taking office much closer to the storm and partly because things had never properly recovered from the last economic storm in 2008. This means also that the situation still doesn’t look good in relation to government finances. There is a hole to fill in those finances and the country is already heavily hit by the tax burden. This means the new Chancellor must walk a difficult tightrope. She needs to continue the work of fixing the public finances without damaging the fragile recovery. Labour have little choice but to rely on the Conservatives’ approach in recent years and hope that they will reap the benefits.
Whilst the easy route to getting your agenda through is to belittle your predecessors and blame everything on them, if Labour want to genuinely show themselves to be different, then giving the last government recognition where it is due and being honest about the positives to the hand they have received could go a long way in changing our political culture. It might also help them to build up credit for when their time in office is drawing to a close and they too feel that their opponents are not recognising their achievements. Moreover it will help the Government to focus on what they really need to do and not waste energy. The Blair administration made the mistake of reversing Tory public sector reforms such as Grant Maintained Schools only to bring back the same ideas with different names (Academies). Michael Gove learnt that lesson and rather than making the same mistake grew and built upon the Academy programme.
Labour will need to pay attention to the concerns in the so called “Red Wall” constituencies. First of all, this means recognising that often those areas are socially conservative. However the challenge facing them is that they also have built up a core support among socially liberal/progressive types. The Prime Minister’s language of not interfering unnecessarily in our lives seems the wisest course of action here,
Immigration will also be on the agenda. I am with the new Government on the Rwanda scheme. I thought it was a terrible waste of money, was immoral but also would be ineffective. Now, whilst the small boats are only a small part of net migration, they are at the visible end. I would also argue that they do present the primary problem because of the sense that borders are uncontrollable and the connection to criminal gangs.
I agree that targeting the gangs is a welcome start but the problem is that there will always be new gangs to take old gangs’ places as long as there is demand. You still have to deal with the issue of why people are willing to risk their lives at sea. Remember that the majority coming in on small boats do win their asylum cases in the end and are coming from countries with known human rights issues.
If I were in Starmer’s shoes, my approach here would be to help build a wider international narrative about why the boats are not just our problem (or Spain and Italy’s in the Med). The issue of international security matters at a point where Putin will want to exploit signs of weakness amongst NATO countries. So, I’d get this on the agenda at the NATO Summit. I’d want to argue that France needs to take greater responsibility for those leaving her shores. In fact I’d be arguing that failure to prevent migrants using unofficial crossing routes is itself a breach of their responsibilities under International Law and Human Rights laws.
Now, here’s the curve ball. I’d also reverse-engineer the Rwanda scheme. The aim of the scheme was to transfer people who came here to a third party nation who would take responsibility for processing claims, taking in genuine refugees and repatriating failed claimants. The big gap in the UK’s approach to asylum is that we’ve failed to take into account the need for safe routes into the country to claim asylum. We also tend to take too long to process claims.
So, what if we were to reform the process to make it more effective? Following this, I would be talking to partner countries in the EU and offering to take on responsibility for a number of asylum seekers within their borders, after all those people are trying to get here anyway. We could then agree to carry out as much of the process in the other country as possible before providing a safe means for them to come here. The flipside of this would be agreement that asylum seekers who have bypassed such routes whilst passing through those countries, including France, will be immediately returned there.
One of the biggest reasons why the Conservatives lost on July 4th was the horrific state of the NHS. Long waiting lists, cancelled operations, failure to have minor problems dealt with before they grew into serious conditions. We all have our stories to tell. The first thing that needs to happen is that the doctors’ dispute needs resolving. I would first of all recognise that they have a genuine claim, a need for salary levels to be restored. However, it is also true that 35% is currently unaffordable. So the Government needs to offer a step by step plan for restoring income levels over a number of years. Secondly, the priority needs to be to ensure that people are getting to see someone quickly to prevent more serious conditions arising. One example of where this needs to happen is with the huge numbers of people who cannot see an NHS dentist.
Thirdly, the NHS is likely to experience a winter crisis again through high COVID and flu levels. This will set back attempts to reduce waiting lists. I still believe that any government worth its salt would provide emergency surge capacity by formalising the Nightingale hospitals approach used during COVID and recruiting a National Health Reserve service of retired doctors and nurses to come in for a few weeks at pinch points.
There will be other things that the Government will want to address and some of the these things will be possible later in the Parliament. However, a good government will also use the advantage of being in power to develop policies and arguments for the next parliament too. ‘;
Faithroots 