Four years ago, few would have predicted the week that just happened in British politics. Boris Johnson led the Conservatives to a resounding general election win in December 2019; Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party suffered its worst defeat since 1935. While it was hard to see the Tory embrace of the populist dream of Brexit ending well for them in the long term, even Labour MPs thought the scale of the party’s losses posed existential questions about its future prospects.
Yet Conservative electoral hopes appear to have imploded in the wake of Brexit as three successive prime ministers have struggled to unite a party around starkly different visions that go beyond leaving the EU. Rishi Sunak struggled to revive Tory chances last week as speculation about the future of HS2 dominated the party conference, and his replacement plans to improve transport infrastructure outside the south-east fell apart with scrutiny on first contact. In stark contrast, Keir Starmer’s Labour party enjoyed a huge byelection win in Rutherglen and Hamilton West. But if Starmer were to win the next general election, the most important question facing a Labour government would be the scale of the challenge it would be inheriting.
Public services
The answer to that question starts with the Conservatives. What was most striking about Sunak’s speech last week was that it lacked any meaningful defence of the Conservative government’s record in office. Despite the fact he was pitching himself to voters as the fifth successive Tory prime minister, he sought to portray himself as a break from the past, as someone who will tackle politics differently not just to Keir Starmer, but his Conservative predecessors.
Little wonder, when you consider the legacy of 13 years of Conservative prime ministers: Britain’s public services dreadfully under-resourced and understaffed; low-income parents struggling with the rising cost of living as the value of the tax credit safety net has been eroded; an economy riven with regional inequalities, with laggard growth prospects as a result of Brexit and a long-term lack of investment.
Yet Sunak’s pitch that he is a different type of prime minister – committed to making long-term decisions in the interest of the country – is utterly implausible. His decision to cancel the Birmingham to Manchester leg of HS2 will save Treasury cash in the short term, but at the cost of much bigger long-term value. The “Network North” plan he announced last week could have been drafted on the back of an envelope: it confused Southampton with Littlehampton, announced the reopening of the Leamside line in the north-east that was later dropped and pledged to build a tram extension to Manchester airport that has already existed for nine years. It is the embodiment of political short-termism: a plan scrambled together to generate a conference announcement is no way to make long-term infrastructure decisions that will influence economic growth decades into the future.
And Sunak had virtually nothing to say on a series of big challenges facing Britain in the here and now: the escalating cost of living that is not just a product of global headwinds but economic policy decisions; the parlous state of the country’s schools and hospitals, with NHS waiting lists at record highs and a long-term recruitment and retention crisis in teaching; housing so unaffordable that growing numbers of young people in their 20s will never own a home.
Climate crisis
Even worse is Sunak’s strategy to actively sow division on climate and asylum policy because he thinks it will work to his electoral advantage. Sunak has undermined the government’s essential target to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2050 by rolling back key measures to help achieve it, such as delaying the ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and scrapping regulations requiring landlords to improve the energy efficiency of rental properties. These will lead to longer-term costs for consumers overall but he clearly believes eroding high levels of public support for net zero by stoking fears about costs will help win him votes. On asylum policy, Sunak has sought to exaggerate the impact asylum seekers arriving on small boats will have on the country in order to win support for government plans to scrap the existing asylum system, instead detaining and deporting everyone who tries to seek asylum after reaching the UK, a plan that is not only unethical but completely unworkable. Railing against out-of-touch “elites” is a populist tactic straight out of the Boris Johnson playbook.
So is the relaxed attitude of Sunak to the truth. From his ludicrous claim that leaving the EU would free up £350m a week for the NHS to his flat-out incorrect statement that there would be no customs checks between Northern Ireland and Great Britain under the Northern Ireland protocol, Johnson was the master of misleading the public for political gain. Sunak is a worthy heir to Johnson, with his claim to be dropping green policies that were never even government policy. Last week in Manchester, transport secretary Mark Harper peddled the conspiracy theory that 15-minute cities mean councils deciding how often citizens can go to the shops, energy secretary Claire Coutinho falsely claimed that Labour supports a meat tax, and Tory mayoral candidate Susan Hall alleged the Jewish community is scared of Sadiq Khan. This approach has bred a deep cynicism: our poll this weekend shows just one in four voters believes Sunak will deliver on the Network North plan if he wins the next election. This is the twin inheritance that would face an incoming Labour government: not just an anaemic economy, a crumbling public infrastructure and a failing welfare safety net; but voters who distrust politicians to do what they say.
Policy pledges
Starmer has achieved an extraordinary turnaround since he became leader three years ago. Labour maintains a significant poll lead over the Conservatives; it is now the largest party in local government in England, and the huge swing from the SNP to Labour in last week’s byelection suggests that even nationalist voters in Scotland may switch to Labour at the next election.
Perhaps the most striking aspect of Starmer’s leadership has been how quickly he distanced the party from its former leader, Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn was swiftly suspended after he claimed that antisemitism within Labour had been “dramatically overstated for political reasons” in response to the Equality and Human Rights Commission finding that the party had unlawfully discriminated against Jewish members, and Labour’s NEC has voted to ensure he will not be allowed to run as a Labour MP at the next general election as a result of his behaviour. Starmer has dropped politically risky policy pledges that were part of his leadership bid for the party, including ending outsourcing in the NHS and local government. There are stark differences between him and Corbyn on foreign policy: Starmer has consistently backed British support for Ukraine and on Saturday unequivocally condemned Hamas’s terrorist attack on Israel. He has made important organisational reforms to the party that strengthen the power of the leadership vis-a-vis its grassroots membership; an important recognition that Labour’s first democratic duty is not to its members but to voters.
Dividing lines
Where Starmer is most vulnerable to criticism is that support for Labour in the polls is motivated more by anti-Conservative sentiment than by enthusiasm for Labour’s vision for the country; and that voters do not yet have a clear idea what Labour stands for. But while some of this may be fair, there are likely many months to go before an election, and Labour needs to keep some of its powder dry when it comes to policy announcements. Starmer, as he suggests in his interview in today’s Observer, also needs to walk a tightrope, setting out what Labour would do differently but avoiding handing the Conservatives easy lines of attack on unfunded spending commitments. Voter cynicism about the efficacy of politicians to achieve change has probably only increased since the electorate broadly rejected the Labour 2019 manifesto, which contained commitments such as free broadband that were seen as unachievable.
Labour has drawn some clear dividing lines with the Tories, for example on breaking the class ceiling, and setting out a much better approach to refugee policy. Where it could be bolder is in revealing how it would borrow to invest in the skills, education, health and transport infrastructure that the country needs.
The outlook for Britain is very different in 2023 than it was in 1996; the uphill task facing a 2024 Starmer government would be steeper than that which confronted the Blair government of 1997. From the housing crisis, to how we care for older people, to achieving net zero: the country today faces monumental challenges that require political bravery and integrity. That will only come from a Labour government.
