Not everyone gets to be a transformational prime minister. This is, in fact, a good thing. ‘Permanent revolution’ is a neat phrase but sounds exhausting, and more to the point: how could you tell which lurch, if any, was the one that worked?
It is generally agreed that since 1945, Britain has had only two such leaders: Clement Attlee and Margaret Thatcher. The former introduced the modern welfare state, the latter secured the triumph of free markets over state planning.
Their premierships were separated by 28 years of post-war consensus. If that same gap had been replicated, we would have expected our next transformational prime minister to regenerate in 2018. Instead, we got Theresa May. Britain is, it is safe to say, overdue.
Such was Mrs Thatcher’s dominance that the new economic model over which she presided — including a flexible labour market, diluted trade union power and privatisation — remained largely unchanged for more than two decades. John Major may have ditched the poll tax and Tony Blair funnelled tens of billions of pounds into creaking public services, but neither overhauled Britain’s economic model or social contract. They didn’t need to.
But following the global financial crisis, the edifice started showing signs of decay. David Cameron kept the show on the road, largely by inflating house prices, but Brexit and Britain’s departure from the single market Thatcher did so much to create has blown it wide open, without offering a replacement. It is now an ex-economic model, in that it has ceased to generate growth.
Transformations are often undesirable because they are disruptive. History is full of ideologues whose whims led to war, famine and mini-Budgets. Systemic change can be a tough sell. Indeed, the extent to which the British public understood the level of transformation it was voting for in 1979 is debatable. That manifesto largely spoke of “controlling inflation”, a “more prosperous country” and “helping the family”.
As such, transformation is often forged through crisis. By 1945 Britons had experienced their second total war in a generation. By the mid-Seventies, the post-war settlement had broken down, as typified by the three-day week and ending in the Winter of Discontent.
The crisis facing Britain now is different to 1979. Then, the question was whether the country was governable. Today, we wonder if we will ever return to rising living standards. But both suggest an inflection point reached.
Our productive capacity has been hobbled by underinvestment and planning restrictions, compounded by one economic shock after another. Real wages have not risen since 2005. We are poorer not only than the United States but Canada and Australia. A nation that lived off the fruits of the Thatcherite revolution for two decades is now running on fumes.
On the face of it, Sir Keir Starmer does not make for a promising radical. Though he may have begun his leadership to the left of Ed Miliband, the Labour leader embraces the language of conservatism and fiscal rectitude. He wants to ‘make Brexit work’. He promises change – but without risk.
So why might it be Starmer? Certainly not due to any law that dictates the next transformation must come from the Left. Indeed, Boris Johnson could have been that prime minister, save for the absence of most of the personal qualities required. But amid the language of reassurance, the Labour leader displays a genuine desire to break from the status quo, from energy and employment law to planning.
Yet there’s one advantage Starmer enjoys: timing. Attlee’s Labour gained credibility from its years in Churchill’s war ministry, Thatcher from the decline of deference, the failure of income policies and the folly of the Argentinian junta.
So 2024 could be one of those rare elections won by a leader who both enjoys the conditions and displays the intent necessary to break with an economic model past its sell-by date. Even if it may not be obvious on election night.
