The triumph of the will

Ben Wildsmith

We’ve seen this week what an elected government in the UK is capable of if it is motivated to act.

Far-right rioters have appeared in court quickly and been sentenced without recourse to probation reports or consideration of overcrowding issues in prisons.

In a moment of seeming national crisis, the system jolted into action in a way that we haven’t seen since the pandemic and, before that, the last riots in 2011.

Observers of British life over the last thousand years will be aware that the supposedly ironclad separation of the executive from the judiciary is more of an ideal than a reality. The nebulous nature of our constitution allows for all manner of cross-pollination between the two spheres, and, in an emergency, that can facilitate urgent action.

‘Leaned’

Keir Starmer is, of course, uniquely well placed to locate the correct levers when it comes to criminal justice, and it has been widely reported that he ‘leaned’ on the justice system to act as it has.

So, in the first instance, let’s applaud that. It was a situation that could easily have spiralled out of control, and, for now, that’s been prevented by governmental decisiveness backed up by the system.

The UK was on fire and now it’s not, only a fool wouldn’t welcome that outcome.

Interestingly, there has been little objection to the process outside of complaints from those – Musk, ‘Robinson’, Farage, Tice etc. – whose views reflect differing shades of those held by the rioters themselves.

Amongst the rest of the population, there seems to be general agreement that the urgency of the situation justified suspending conventional practices.

There is a lesson for elected representatives here. We put them into power with the expectation that they will wield it on our behalf. That power is considerably more potent than politicians of all stripes would have us believe. In 2008, it was used to bail out the banking sector to the tune of £137 billion.

Furlough scheme

The pandemic furlough scheme cost £70 billion. These spending decisions were made quickly and without a mandate as circumstances demanded. In both cases, they were made against a backdrop of neglect, in banking regulation and pandemic preparedness respectively.

So, we have seen that government is adequately empowered to enact legislation quickly, compel agencies to implement it, and to raise finance as necessary. The system, it seems, works, but is only made to under threat of impending disaster.

The question for Starmer going forward is how to keep the systems of government running like this so that points of crisis are averted in the first place. My own view is that the perceived problems around immigration are more of a symptom than a cause of the widespread dissatisfaction amongst the British public.

It is now so embedded in the national consciousness as a set of serious issues that it needs to be addressed specifically. In recent years, it has been government policy simultaneously to inflate the seriousness of the problem and then feign powerlessness in the face of judicial restraint.

That game needs to be brought to a very public end. Labour was circumspect about its plans for immigration measures during the election campaign, presumably feeling that whatever it proposed could be misrepresented.

Decisive majority

It now has a decisive majority and no credible opposition in parliament. However it seeks to address the issues, whether by negotiation with the EU or via domestic legislation, the government needs to be clear, decisive, and resolute.

The same attitude should, of course, be taken towards the crisis in public services.

We have seen with our own eyes how much can be achieved quickly if there is the political will to act. The rhetoric of this government has a tendency to conflate inaction with caution, as if it were a safe option. A Conservative government is elected with a mandate for that line of thinking, as it is charged with maintaining the status quo as regards the distribution of wealth. It has led to a tearing of the social fabric which is becoming more expensive with every botched repair.

Here in Wales, no such remedial power exists. Our government cannot print money nor borrow it in quantities to address the fundamentals of our economy. It is, however, in possession of a pulpit from which it can preach the urgency of the situation. It was, then, excruciating to hear Baroness Morgan use her first speech as FM to instruct us that more austerity is on the way.

If you ask any Labour politician whether George Osborne’s economics were ruinous for the UK, they will agree that they were. They were ruinous in poorer areas, many in Wales, to a disproportionate degree. To persist with underinvestment when the electorate has rejected it is perverse.

The ‘our hands are tied’ defence for neglecting serious issues in this country is dependent on discredited economics that were a trojan horse for further enriching the investment class.

This government, as we have seen, is capable of acting when it needs to. It has a thumping majority and minimal internal dissent. The question we should be asking of Starmer and Morgan is, what do you want to do? We’ve heard enough of what you can’t do to fill a courtroom.