A government without a plan – where next for UK politics?
Dr Keith Darlington
Does the Starmer Labour Party have a coherent government plan? The answer seems to be a resounding no.
In opposition, Starmer wanted to be all things to all voters. He became known for his U-turns and for being vague and ambiguous on many policy issues. UK Labour claimed they had the solutions to our problems but never told us how it would happen.
Now that they are in government, it’s even harder to know how it will happen because their approach is always to distract attention away from themselves by blaming the Tories for everything but offering very little in the way of a solution. Over several decades, the UK has been on a declining path, whoever is in power. In the last 25 years, governments have been elected with large majorities—sometimes large landslides—yet we still have chronic underinvestment, low productivity, and declining living standards relative to the rest of Europe .
In this article, I will demonstrate with the examples below that Starmer’s Labour is not proposing enough to bring about any significant change from the previous government.
Port Talbot steelworks
Stephen Kinnock and Jo Stevens, both hold Welsh constituency seats, and have spent much of their time during BBC interviews in recent weeks rubbishing the Tories when commenting on the closure of Port Talbot Steelworks. Yet, it is now clear that, in government, their deal for the steelworks is no different from what the Tories offered despite saying otherwise before being elected.
For example, Vaughan Gething told a press conference earlier this year that the shedding of about 2,500 jobs was “genuinely avoidable” if the UK Government would “engage” with the Welsh Government. However, we now know that UK Labour had no plan to do anything significantly different from the previous government.
The economy
Before the General Election, Starmer and his acolytes constantly told us that growth was the key to the future success of the UK economy. Growth, Growth, Growth was the mantra of Starmer and Reeves. We were told they would grow the economy but never told how.
However, growth cannot happen without impetus, and Labour’s other pronouncements would be incompatible with growth. For example, they told us they would stick to the previous Tory spending limits. Furthermore, they would not consider any changed relationship with the EU that could provide any new trading impetus. This means that they have tightly bound the UK economy, so the scope for growth would be very limited.
Contradictory
This all sounds like a contradictory mess that was bound to stoke up difficulties when in government. And so it has because we now see that the removal of the Winter Fuel Allowance for some pensioners has backfired spectacularly.
Starmer will struggle to live this down, and we are only a few months into this government. This was not even in their manifesto, and it has the look of a government wanting to show that they are ready to take tough decisions rather than being part of a plan.
This action has other consequences because it looks like austerity (in all but name), and this was not in the script.
Labour appears to be bereft of a plan to move the economy forward other than hoping that time alone will bring improvements.
The NHS
It is a similar story with the NHS. In a speech given by Starmer on September 12th , he stated there would be no money without reform. However, as so often is the case, he has not clarified what exactly he means by reform. He also said that there would be an emphasis on prevention of illnesses by banning sugar ads and smoking outdoors and called for a move away from large hospitals to smaller local community units.
He said it would take 10 years. Very convenient because this implies that the electorate would have to elect him for another term.
However, this is a very meagre offering from a party that once prided itself on the NHS. Furthermore, many NHS managers say that the NHS problems cannot be solved without dealing with social care. They believe that a lack of social care can cause a backlog in the NHS, as hospitals sometimes cannot discharge medically fit patients. Yet, social care was omitted entirely from Labour’s manifesto!
UK politics is not working
UK Labour has been in office for less than 100 days and has nothing to offer that is significantly different from the previous Tory government. It is little wonder that it is all going badly wrong for Starmer. He lost one Labour MP (Rosie Duffield) and became the most unpopular PM in record time.
However, the UK government is the only country that still uses the much discredited First Past The Post (FPTP) voting system, apart from Belarus. To their credit, our Welsh government is about to change its electoral system from FPTP to a form of proportional representation. UK Labour should take a leaf from Welsh Labour’s book and consider doing the same.
FPTP must go
Labour won a landslide victory only because of our flawed electoral system. Labour only got 1 out of 5 of those eligible to vote and polled just 33.7% of the voters who turned out.
Even the turnout was at a record low. This is an appalling indictment of our failing democracy. Labour and the Tories are beneficiaries of our flawed system because of the geographical distribution of their support. Both parties will resist change, but we now live in a multiparty age, whether they like it or not.
Even when elected with landslide majorities, both main parties have failed to arrest our decline; a changed proportional voting system at least enables other voices to be heard with the possibility of new thinking.
One thing is clear, our politics is broken, and something needs to change. Mark Drakeford, to his credit, along with Plaid Cymru, realised this was also a problem in Wales. He had the courage to make the change and ensure that the next Senedd election to be held in 2026 will use a more proportional voting system.
If UK Labour cares about our dying democracy and country, they should take a leaf out of Drakeford’s book and implement a fairer proportional voting system. It’s worth a try because our two-party majority politics is no longer working – whoever is in power.
Dr Keith Darlington is an author and retired university lecturer from Wales
Support our Nation today
For the price of a cup of coffee a month you can help us create an independent, not-for-profit, national news service for the people of Wales, by the people of Wales.
Even more disturbingly many labour MPs only obtained their seats because Reform split the opposition vote. I was dismayed to see that the Reform vote and Tory vote when added together often amounted to more than the number of votes obtained by the Labour candidate suggesting that if Reform had not been there the Labour landslide would have been a lot less, maybe nothing of the kind. I am dismayed that Starmer’s cabinet lacks the much needed initiative of Plaid, say, or Jeremy Corben.
Never has a new government seemed to be so totally adrift making themselves indistinguishable from the Tories and making Amateur Night mistakes leading to them being tarnished with slease accusations after a few weeks. I despair.
Many of us have been saying these very things for a very long time. The UK is constitutionally, politically and economically dysfunctional. It’s political institutions have been debased since 2018 by two of the worst Prime Ministers the UK has ever had. 45 years of neoliberalism and counting, 14 years of austerity have ripped the guts out of manufacturing and the public sector. The UK’s economy has become badle unbalanced and centralised around the services sector in the south east of England around the City. Westminster has looked to clawback powers. Even now, Labour peers are warning of clawback bills… Read more »
Constitutional change is vital, but there has to be a positive argument for a specific proposal not just negative criticism of what exists today. What exactly is proposed, how would it work, and how could it be achieved?
The history of Eastern Europe over the past 30 shows that the break up of states can lead to a wide range of outcomes, malign as well as benign.
Always negative from you Lyn. What’s your agenda? I’ve made plenty of positive cases and argued for several options to be considered. You know I’m an advocate of Plaid’s proposal which is a confederal union of British nation states. What sovereignty we choose to share in such an arrangement obviously to be discussed further. Beyond that, written constitutions to prevent the sort of shenanigans Bojo inflicted on the UK and elections by PR. When it comes to government, I’ll be voting for a party in favour of a social market economy … I have my opinions Lyn but the fundamental… Read more »
Hardly negative to ask for positive proposals. I do not see ‘a Democratic Welsh State’ as a fundamental goal but one that has to be justified by showing how it would improve the wellbeing of current and future generations. I support expanding Wales’ powers to control our own affairs. I am not opposed in principle to a negotiated confederal union, although that would of course need to be agreed by all its members. Its practical differences in many respects from Devo-Max or Home Rule might be quite small. I am strongly opposed to any suggestions of UDI. For the 2026… Read more »
No, constantly seeing the negative Lyn. “Ah, but …” Almost every post. Plenty of positive proposals out there. UDI is our last resort if we’re forced into a dead end. Needs must eh.
Only a dogmatist fears questions over how something would work. What do you see as ‘negative’ in my observation that Plaid Cymru can make a strong case that Labour is not standing up for people in Wales?
My professional background is in IT. I know from experience that not thinking through what might fail guarantees that it will, and the system crashes. The same is true for politics.
Life is hard for many people in Wales. Let’s focus on making it better.
“Only a dogmatist fears questions over how something would work.”
Absolutely correct.
Now let’s see your answers to how your vision for the country (defined as you wish) is achieved and will work.
Avoiding giving answers, (rather than the usual lofty ideals and hopeful wishes), would indentify a fearful dogmatist, yes.
I prefer to focus on what I can see in the real world rather than visions, best left to those who think they have the gift of prophecy. In a volatile world, that leads me to concentrate my attention and activity on issues of immediate importance with longer term significance. It’s more effective than dreaming. As well as engaging with my local community, I am involved in various campaigns on matters such as environment, solidarity with unions, anti-racism, and others. On Saturday, I will be marching for peace in Palestine and the wider region, as I have most weeks over… Read more »
As you were quick to point out to those don’t share your views.
“Only a dogmatist fears questions over how something would work.”
“Visionary constitutions are not my priority.”
!
You’re going on a march for peace in Palestine and the wider region.
Most people on that march will have concluded that a visionary constitution is a priority for sustained peace even if such a detail isn’t a priority for you.
I detect a certain detachment from reality.
Please explain how a visionary constitution for Cymru, unachievable for years/decades if ever, is going to help obtain Middle East peace now.
You say –
“On Saturday, I will be marching for peace in Palestine and the wider region,”
I say –
“Most people on that march will have concluded that a visionary constitution is a priority for sustained peace”
And from that you think that the visionary constitution refers not to Israel/Palestine but Cymru!
I could venture a diagnosis but that wouldn’t be right thing to do.
I asked that question because it seemed to be your obsession.
Having first protested for Palestine in 1982 (possibly earlier) I know there is a range of views on those marches (as there is among the Palestinian people) about what the future might look like.
Some of us feel we should not (from here) be prescriptive about what others should want. But we must strive for peace and for an outcome that will ensure freedom, equality and justice for all, irrespective of religion or ethnicity.
Keir Starmer is a fraud. A modern day Judas. Responsible for purging the left was elected by party members on a manifesto of change. And as soon as he became leader reneged of most of his promises & pledges made before wallowing like a political pig in the proverbial surrounded by gifts & freebies. Just look at what has occured literally 3 months into Labour taking government. We find pensioners loosing their Winter Fuel Allowance as Labour rubber-stamp King Charles a fat pay rise as sovereign who.likexa leech continues to siphon l hundreds of millions off Wales with the Crown… Read more »
I’m convinced the answer is in the three symbol hand-shadows as signed by the holy trinity, if this was a da Vinci painting it could only have come from Lovejoy…
the bird, the ming vase, the prayer !
Greater proportionality is certainly needed. But, as many analysts have noted, closed lists were not required to achieve that. This method is designed to ensure that existing MSs (placed at the top of party lists) retain their seats by depriving voters of our right to assess the performance of individual politicians. Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru are both to blame.
Never mind. Insiders are hinting that Sir Keir Starmer is very angry that his government has no idea what to do about anything. I’m told that he is deeply concerned about it, and even though no rules have been broken and it’s all the Tories’ fault, he still understands how some may feel that this is unacceptable and not at all OK. If things are still like this after 10 years, he may even consider speaking out against himself. Can’t ask for more than that, can you?
The treatment of Corbyn by Starmer and co says all we need to know about Starmer the current LP. Anti democratic, backstabbing elites intent on pursuing a right wing neo liberal agenda at the ecpense of the well being of most people in the UK. Tories in all but name.