Broken Britain and the quest for growth

There′s so much political comment out there on UK politics it can be hard to keep on top of it.

Every week-ish I publish commentary that′s caught my eye and hopefully helps you with some insight.

Do subscribe if you find it helpful.

And if you need help delivering your political engagement strategy, public affairs training or want to chat about where the UK is heading politically drop me a message here?and let's chat informally.

?

Let′s dive in.

This week′s edition picks up on:

·????? Are Labour′s attempts to create a government of service going to be hampered by a ‘broken’ state?

·????? Is the mantra of growth enough for Labour′s political mission?

·????? The impact of inaccurate polling on general elections

·????? What could Keir Starmer learn from Jacinda Arden

…And more

Britain has always been broken

?

Not my words, but from the opening comments of a great discussion between Lord Adonis, Dominic Cummings and Munira Mirza (How do we radically improve Britain's state capacity?).

?

According to the panellists, the big problem is the way different governments have tried to fix broken Britain has been based on a random and patchy understanding of what′s happening on the ground. ?

?

One reason for this is the recurring problem of lack of expertise embedded in the British state and real-life experience. There′s also a barrier to easily moving top outside experts into senior government posts as the administrative bureaucracy makes it too hard and is a disincentive.

?

For Labour, Cummings and Adonis think the challenge to reform the state, deliver infrastructure and fix public services is likely to be slowed down by bureaucratic obstacles and challenges. Some problems will be environmental and legal issues and other process issues (some self-imposed by the state).

?

So, if Labour wants to achieve its growth mission it means the prime minister will have to be prepared to lean heavily into his political mandate and political power, push through come what may and focus the Civil Service to find solutions not problems. Political will does matter and can really make a transformational difference despite several process obstacles.

?

Finally, convincing the public of the need for new infrastructure is going to be a battle as they are used to public infrastructure being poorly delivered and are likely to be cynical.

?

But, the panellists argue if the government can grasp the fundamentals (e.g. planning) and be totally committed to these goals and communicate the benefits well, then there is the potential for real political success.

Growth is not enough

?

Sometimes it feels like every other sentence that rolls off the tongue of new Labour ministers and MPs contains the word “growth”. It′s the north star of the party. Rightly so, as if more economic growth is achieved the difference it will make to people could be life-changing.

?

However, is it enough as the sum of Labour′s political mission? Tom McTague in What Roger Scruton can teach Starmer?Britain needs to feel like home poses this question, drawing on the thinking of conservative philosopher and political writer, Roger Scruton.

?

McTague thinks ministers, finding themselves in office sooner than expected due to an early election, have not prepared as much policy to tackle challenges as they might have and “there is no obvious overarching narrative tying these various challenges together in one clear story about the mission of this government.”?

?

Perhaps Labour needs to pay more attention to the theme of national identity and quoting Scruton, “Who are we, where are we, and what holds us together…” especially in a post-Brexit world where the UK has had a lot of national tension and division, and in a time where populism has been a significant feature of political and national life.

?

But, referring to Scruton, he flags that people’s sense of identity is just as important if not more important than economic growth for national unity, stability and confidence. He thinks central to Starmer′s political mission is not needing “to make Britain great again, he needs to make it feel like home.”

?

Other top picks

Pollsters were so wrong they need a rethink: Labour’s lead was half the 20 points the industry said. It needs to admit it has a problem and try asking new questions?(Daniel Finkelstein)

Quote:

·????? The second consequence of the polls being wrong should be to reduce the degree of reliance upon them in the coverage of politics… I believe in data. But I don’t believe in data that is so often misleading. And unfortunately that is the case with voting intention polls…The entire narrative and reporting of the election would have been different if Labour had been correctly understood to be supported by about 35 per cent of voters rather than 45 per cent. The gap with the Tories was about 10 percentage points rather than over 20. My interest here is not in the political impact of the polling, rather on the truthfulness of reporting.

Keir Starmer’s never-ending insurgency: Those around the prime minister want to wage a permanent campaign for change that voters will give them credit for (Robert Shrimsley, The FT)

Quote:

·????? “The insurgency principle is driven by Morgan McSweeney, Labour’s campaign chief now installed as director of strategy in Downing Street…McSweeney argues that the next election campaign has already started and that strategy must evolve with a changed electoral landscape. A central premise is that delivery is not enough. A Downing Street aide cites Joe Biden as proof that economic growth and jobs are not enough to ensure victory. “Voters don’t do gratitude. We have to always be asking what’s next?”

Jacinda Ardern’s ambitious reform agenda in New Zealand: Three lessons for Keir Starmer?(Nehal Davison)

Quote

·????? “Ardern’s government relied heavily on the model of ‘working groups’ to build consensus and find pragmatic solutions that would endure changes in administration… Clarity around the purpose of these groups and how their recommendations would be acted upon was also sometimes lacking…This is a crucial lesson. Labour’s manifesto mentions at least 16 different reviews, and the chancellor has announced the formation of an economic advisory council to guide Labour’s ‘growth’ mission. To ensure these initiatives are impactful, the government must clarify their purpose and maintain a sharp focus – for example, on whether they are intended to merely define the ‘problems’ or to build consensus around policy responses.”

Out of the box: the Tory case for electoral reform?(Tim Bale)

Quote:

·????? “At the moment, as this election has clearly demonstrated, support for a party like Reform simply doesn’t translate into seats – and probably never will do if the UK persists with FPTP. A more proportional system, however, would see it get a truly significant number of MPs elected – MPs who could either join the Conservatives in a coalition or, as happens in many continental European countries, help it into office via a confidence and supply arrangement…Tories out there should think carefully before responding with a crushingly predictable knee-jerk ‘no’. It took a quarter of a century last time for FPTP’s pendulum to swing back to benefitting them more than it did Labour. Do they really want to risk that happening again? After an absurdly disproportional result that has seen the Conservative Party’s Westminster contingent fall to a historic low, surely now is the time to think outside the box.”

Does the Labour government believe in anything??This King’s Speech is our first chance to inspect the moral code behind “Starmerism”.

?(Andrew Marr)

Quote:

·????? “From the heart of the Starmer project, comes a more generous and optimistic assessment of the “animating idea”. It is that, first, the new government is heavily influenced by the impacts of the financial crash and believes that a genuine rebalancing towards working people must be at the core of what it does. As one Starmer adviser put it to me, “We must end the sense that people feel invisible in their own country – and everything he does he sees through that lens…“Indeed, the same thinker tells me in the most eloquent phrase about “Starmerism” I have yet heard: “For Keir, respect is his equivalent to equality. It goes very deep indeed.” Respect, beyond equality, is a touchstone that we are going to talk about a lot more in the years ahead.”

Labour Economist: Paying More Taxes Will Make People Happier?(Lord Richard Layard, PoliticsHome)

Quote:

·????? “In her first speech as Chancellor, Reeves declared she “will not hesitate” to “deliver growth”. But thinking government is set up to grow the economy is “complete nonsense”, according to Layard. Instead, Labour should deliver on happiness. “It’s not the case that the government role is most naturally directed to the economy, as many people think,” he says. “And it is in many ways easier for the government to affect things like mental health, with providing proper mental health services, by having proper life skills, lessons in schools and so on.”

Rachel Reeves should rethink the fiscal rules?(Iain Begg)

Quote:

·????? “Second, economic growth, placed at the heart of Labour’s economic policy, should also be reflected in the fiscal framework. In her 2024 Mais lecture, Reeves floated the idea of restoring a so-called golden rule under which borrowing for public investment would be treated differently from borrowing for current spending…The main problem with golden rules is that what constitutes public investment is somewhat arbitrary and prone to be equated with physical capital…the focus should be on the quality of public investment based on criteria related to economic growth. Does the project offer a realistic prospect of adding to growth; what are the risks; can the business case make sense, and so on? The OBR could be asked to develop such criteria and to use them to vet the case for including categories of spending.”

Repost if you enjoyed reading this and think others might find it helpful.