Is Britain ungovernable? It’s a suggestion that I’ve heard increasingly in response to Keir Starmer’s current troubles. Those making the argument will also point to the quick succession of Conservative Prime Ministers in the past 10 years. This last decade has seen 4 Conservative Prime Ministers and 1 Labour. Is the problem that the people are so divided and discontent that no one could succeed.
Rhys Laverty makes a variation on that argument in the latest Evangelicals Now. He writes:
“This glut of Prime Ministers is a symptom of what has now become a structural feature of British political life: we are an intensely divided country, and more so by the day. Is it possible to effectively lead a country like that?”
So, is this true? I have other questions to raise about Rhys’ article and will come to them later. However, it is perhaps best to respond to that claim and question first. To do so, we need to look back on history. Between 1979 and 2016, we saw 5 Prime Ministers. In other words, we have been through as many PMs in 10 years as we did in the previous 37. That does give the impression that there has been quite a shift. However, we also saw three Labour Prime Ministers in the 1970s whilst the Conservatives went through 4 PMs during their time in office between 1951 and 1964. It is not unusual to have short term leaders. Indeed, Thatcher and Blair are the outliers for longevity whilst Cameron and Major reflect the mean.
It is also worth noting that whilst there seems to have been quite a rapid turnover of Prime Ministers, it’s primarily down to unforced errors. David Cameron did not have to play the Brexit referendum and its result the way he did, Boris was tripped up over a piece of cake and as for Liz Truss, well perhaps the less said the better. If Starmer resigns, It won’t be because the country is ungovernable but because of in his words “unnecessary mistakes”, quite the euphemism for appointing Peter Mandelson and then sacking a bunch of civil servants even though he caliemd that “due process was followed.”
Meanwhile, focus on the turnover in personnel risks masking the true picture. We l,ive in a parliamentary democracy and the PM is first amongst equals, not a presidential figure. In my lifetime (just shy of 52 years), we’ve seen 4 changes of government. We have had two conservative governments, one lasting 18 years and one 14 with a 13 year Labour Government sandwiched in-between. That hardly shouts instability.
Further, Laverty’s suggestion that the country is deeply divided may be true. That’s surely the reason for democracy, a recognition that people differ sharply in their opinions about how a nation should function. Guess what? This is nothing new. The 1970s and 80s were marked by a clash between those who favoured free market economics, strong defence, low taxes etc versus those who wanted nuclear disarmament, powerful trade unions, high taxes and nationalisation. Indeed, all of the differences between Reform and the Conservatives or the Greens/Your Party and Labour were always there, they just happened within the structures of the two main parties. If we are seeing more and more smaller parties then that’s not unusual in other countries. The question is whether or not we wait to see whether this leads to a shift with new parties replacing old as happened about a century ago or whether multi-party politics is here to stay. The question is whether the first past the post system wins which forces a two party race or the multi-party reality wins out and we have to change the system to fit it. There are pros and cons to both.
Why does this matter? Well, one of our concerns is public theology. We want to think through how we as Christians should respond to, pray for and speak into public life. If we are going to do that well, then we need to read the situation accurately.
Secondly, because, Laverty’s argument seems to be less along the lines of it being we the people who are at fault for being ungovernable and the failure of the politicians to understand our wants and needs. I don’t disagree too much with that. Indeed, the result has been less that the people are ungovernable and more that parliament and individual parties are.
However, the result of this is that whilst Laverty’s piece seems at first glance to be focusing on the structures of politics, I notice that there is a heavy emphasis on two issues. First on immigration and the argument is worded in such a way as to favour anti-immigration sentiment. Secondly, he lumps pensions and the welfare bill together, highlighting that 25% of pensioners are millionaires. He writes:
“The younger, working age population is increasingly at odds with those who benefit from their tax receipts in the form of pensions and welfare, feeling that they are long past the point of rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s (Matthew 22v21) and are being asked to feed those who will not work (2 Thessalonians 3v10).”
The problem here is that he has smuggled in the arguments without really giving space to properly engage them and there are significant issues around both of his assessments. I’ve written much about immigration previously, so let’s focus here on pensions and welfare.
First, it is concerning to see the lumping of welfare claimants and pensioners together as “those who will not work” against “the younger, working age population.” First of all, remember that many welfare claimants will belong among that “younger working age population.” Secondly remember that quite a bit of the welfare bill supplements income for working families rather than paying those who aren’t working. Thirdly, whilst it may be the case that some people are unwilling to work, there may be many others that for a variety of reasons are unable to find suitable employment.
When it comes to pensioners. These are not people who have been unwilling to work but in fact have already given a life time to work. Many Christian pensioners are the backbone of local churches and serving the community in a voluntary capacity. Indeed, one of the challenges wee now face is the impact of a rising pension age on such.
Is it true that 25% of pensioners are “millionaires”? The answer is a little bit more complex than that. You see, the definition is not about liquid cash, rather it includes property, savings and pension pots. If you live in the South East of England and are 67 years old, you may have a property valued at around £500,000 and a pension pot of over £500,000. Technically that makes you a millionaire but you can’t go and blow that cash on holidays and partying, you have resources there to support you into your 90s and pay for your care when your working age children decide that you need moving into a home.[1]In any case, 75% of pensioners are not millionaires under any definition. Further, whilst the state pension is paid out of current government revenue, today’s pensioners paid their contributions to National Insurance throughout their working life. So, it is simplistic to say that our tax receipts pay their pensions.
For those reasons, I’m not convinced that the examples thrown in by Laverty are accurate. Now, none of this takes away from the fact that politics is challenging. As the saying goes.
“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all the people all of the time”
Leaders do well to remember that both because there is a positive in there. You can please some people and even all people some times. However, leaders, including political leaders are finite. This reminds us to trust in the one who is infinite.
[1] Just to reassure my dad if he is reading, we have no intention of doing that.
Faithroots 