1 August 2024

Labour

Men of their hands?

By Robert Kilconner

One of the striking things about the election was that many of Labour’s pledges could have been made by the Tories. Both parties want to build more houses; both parties want to stop the boats; both parties want growth; neither party wants to increase taxes on the working man. All jolly good stuff but, apart from the delivery of growth, which is now the centre of a row between Reeves and Hunt, why is it that the Tories had not done all this themselves? Why are there not enough houses? Why are refugees still sailing across? Why are waiting lists still too long? Did the Tories not really care about these things?

Of course they did.  The reason why clearly desirable outcomes have not been achieved is that it is extremely difficult to achieve them. Delegate planning decisions to the locals and you sink into a sea of Nimbyism. How do you stop boats? Labour talked about better policing but does that really work? Maybe you need some threat to discourage people, sending them to Rwanda for example. Nobody liked that policy but in the end the Home Office could not think of anything better. Will they be cleverer under Labour? Then take the junior doctors’ strike. Brilliantly solved by the incoming administration but will others in the government service be wondering about how their salaries compare?

This isn’t to trash Labour’s pledges but to make the point that whether a government is successful depends not on what it would like to do so much as its ability to achieve its objectives. That depends on the quality of its ministers, quite a different thing from whether they spout politically attractive dogma.

An incoming government does have advantages over one which has been in place for years. It has less baggage and can introduce reforms without being accused of changing direction. That leaves it with a certain amount of low-hanging fruit, the universal winter fuel payments for example, the road under Stonehenge for another. “Tut, tut”, they can say. “What a waste of money. Just the sort of thing our predecessors would have done. Away with it.”

Yes, there are things like that but the big calls will be far more difficult. Achieving housing targets means centralising decision-making in an age where government is becoming more local (giving power to mayors for example). Removing the cap on care costs reduces the stability of people’s finances. Charging VAT on private education may mean schools moving into the EU. It is a world of unexpected consequences and requires smart scientific brains to see implications. Have Labour’s new cadre of ministers got brains like that? Some have, no doubt, and it will be up to Starmer to weed out those who have not. Just as the main job of a headmaster is to choose and support good staff, so the main job of a Prime Minister is to choose his ministers well. Sir Keir has already showed some ruthlessness in ditching Thornbury. He will need to stay tough as things develop.

The start of the new government has been marked by a row. Reeves says that the state of the country comes as a surprise. Hunt says that the books were open. I have no idea who is right. Still, it doesn’t matter much. In the end politicians have to play the hand that they are dealt. Will this government play well or badly? It is too early to even hazard a guess.