all change, please
Regardless of your politics, it’s hard to argue that Rishi Sunak’s government was anything other than a spent force, bereft of ideas and energy, flailing around for a position to stick to. They posed variously as free marketeers and authoritarians, while failing both to stimulate growth or tackle “woke nonsense” (whatever that means). After what could charitably be called a wasted decade, a period of reflection in opposition will be good for the Tories - and the country.
But, what now? Before the election, Keir Starmer’s Labour Party was anxious not to commit significantly on policy, cleverly avoiding alienating Middle England by adopting a ‘Ming vase’ strategy. He focused instead on the vibes of seriousness and competence, and leant in to not being the Tories and not being Jeremy Corbyn. That strategy has won his party a huge, historic majority. Now let’s hope they can leverage it into tangible policy progress - because the country needs help.
elected, appointed, anointed
The early signs are good. The new government comprises outwardly able people covering areas with which they are familiar - round pegs in round holes. We now have a Chancellor who was a professional economist (not a history graduate1), a Rail Minister who ran both TfL and National Rail, and a Cabinet full of people who spent years in opposition getting on top of their new briefs.
From a legal perspective, it’s refreshing to see a heavyweight silk appointed as Attorney General, as the politicisation of that office was a development from which I worried we wouldn’t return. And recruiting James Timpson as Prisons Minister - the decision that won most of the headlines - shows a real desire to grasp the nettle of criminal justice reform.
Whether these appointments will be effective will depend on one thing: consistency. The governmental merry-go-round of the last parliament saw us shuffle through four Justice Secretaries, five Chancellors, six Education Secretaries - and five different Cabinet positions for Grant Shapps in as many years. This is no way to run a country. Starmer needs to give his new team the time and space to make an impact.
radical incrementalism
One of Starmer’s army of new MPs is Torsten Bell, who was parachuted into a safe Welsh seat shortly before the election. He is a serious thinker, having run the Resolution Foundation think tank for almost a decade prior to becoming a candidate. And, with astute timing, he published a book about the state of the country just last month, titled Great Britain? How We Get Our Future Back.2
Although optimistic in outlook, Bell’s assessment makes for sobering reading. The new government faces an unenviable list of thorny policy problems on which there has been little to no progress for a decade. Underlying all of those issues is the inescapable fact that we have become a low growth, low productivity, high inequality country, with living standards materially lower than our supposed peers.3
His prescription is “radical incrementalism”. The idea is slow but persistent progress towards significant change, by way of rapid, but modest, policy implementation. As he notes: “Early victories will incrementally rebuild faith and break us out of the stagnation trap ... in time, higher public investment drives growth, but in the short term it means something almost as important: potholes that are filled in, rather than providing a daily, jolting reminder of the country’s stagnation.”
mission economy
While radical incrementalism seems an apt description of Starmer’s approach so far, his professed policy strategy is more ambitious than that. You would be forgiven if, during the election, you missed that Labour’s big new idea for implementation involves five “ambitious, measurable, long-term objectives” for something called “mission-driven government” - and that strategy has now been carried into government.4
The idea of ‘missions’ comes from a 2021 book by Mariana Mazzucato: Mission Economy. Taking her cue from the Apollo 11 mission to put a man on the Moon, Mazzucato rejects the orthodoxy that the state is slow and inefficient - that it should simply maintain the playing field for the private sector - and instead promotes a proactive state, which works across government and with the private sector to achieve specific, bold ambitions. And, while I found that the book’s (otherwise interesting) ideas were rendered flat by Mazzucato’s incredibly dry prose style5, they clearly appeal to Starmer.
The risk of long-term missions, though, is lots of talk, lots of working groups, lots of interdepartmental meetings and announcements - but no tangible progress. This cuts against the sort of quick wins advocated by Bell. So perhaps ambitious missions achieved through radical incrementalism is the way to achieve proper change. Labour will put that to the test over the next five years.
a new hope?
The scale of the problems facing the country means it has of late been hard to be optimistic for the future. Yet, some of the early policy direction of the new government is almost enough to restore that fickle sense of… hope.
The focus on growth is particularly encouraging. The UK’s economy has stagnated since 2008, making us all poorer and the public realm threadbare: if we want to avoid becoming Italy without the weather, action is required. So it’s right that Labour has made “kickstarting economic growth” the first of their five ‘missions’.
The government also seems to recognise that planning reform is crucial to succeeding in this growth agenda, as many of the country’s most pressing economic problems can be linked to our collective inability to build. The low-cost, rapid boost to economic activity these reforms will yield could be invaluable, even (or especially) if it means upsetting some Nimbys.
Another welcome change is the government’s refusal (so far) to engage with gimmicky nonsense. The doomed Rwanda policy was dropped instantly. National Service will not be pursued. We are re-engaging with our foreign allies - rather than insulting them. The “era of culture wars is over”, apparently. Let’s hope it stays that way.
… but continued disappointment
It’s not all positive, though. For me, a few issues stand out:
A serious country should be able to complete meaningful infrastructure projects. By that measure, we are not a serious country. HS2 has suffered spiralling costs and delays - but Sunak’s pared-back proposal (his most malign legacy) means we’ve spent £66bn across 15 years for a train from Birmingham to Old Oak Common which solves none of the existing capacity issues. We must implement the original route - in full - before the land is sold off. Anything else would be a gross false economy.
I hoped the generational smoking ban had died with Sunak’s premiership. It seems not: the idea, which means anyone born from January 2009 will never be able to buy tobacco products, was in the King’s Speech. Prohibiting vices has repeatedly been shown to be a futile, expensive and damaging waste of time - just look at the catastrophic failure of the war on drugs. But we can now look forward to an absurd future where 51 year olds show ID to buy cigarettes, while 50 year olds get them from drug dealers.
Martyn’s Law is an illustrative example of modern policymaking.6 First, it suffers from the unfortunate habit of nicknaming laws after victims of tragedies - a trend which inhibits scrutiny by imbuing bad legislation with emotional resonance. (Laws should have dull names.) Second, while well-intentioned, it shows a worrying inability to consider trade-offs: a policy the government itself estimates will have a net benefit of negative £2.1bn is being pushed through in the interests of ‘safety at all costs’.
I’m yet to see any convincing argument for extending the voting age to 16. Only ten countries in the world allow voting at that age - including such heavyweight democracies as Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Jersey and Malta. Any voting age is inherently arbitrary, but drawing the line at legal adulthood is fair and better than the alternatives. Labour should drop the proposed reform - it happily didn’t make it into the King’s Speech.
But I’m nitpicking. From all but the most hardened Tories, I sense a general feeling of goodwill towards the new government. The country has been in decline, but it’s not terminal if the right decisions are made now. Let’s hope Starmer is up to the task.
extra content
reading: it’s hard to write well about drinking and drug-taking without sounding cringe. Denis Johnson managed it. I recently read his debut, Jesus’ Son, a collection of short stories following a shared protagonist (‘Fuckhead’) and his misadventures in backwater America. It really is very good - poetic, dark, funny, vivid (and extremely pacy). I then read Irvine Welsh’s Ecstasy which, while a good read, felt pulpy and straightforward in comparison.
watching: having watched both Force Majeure and Triangle of Sadness in the last month, I have concluded that Ruben Östlund may be a bit troubled. Of the two, the former - a dark comedy about the aftermath of a reaction to a crisis - is more disciplined and effective; while the latter - a satire of the super-rich - is indulgent and on-the-nose. But, in both cases, Mark Kermode was right that “when it comes to conjuring up the cinema of discomfort, few are as eloquent as Östlund.”
listening: I attended the last One Track Minds event to be held at Wilton’s Music Hall in the East End. The premise is a sort-of Desert Island Discs monologue, where a variety of semi-notable people (mainly writers) tell the story of how a particular song changed their lives, and then play the song in full. It’s a great idea, and makes for an entertaining evening - even though (or perhaps because) I didn’t know any of the speakers beforehand. A real shame, though, that it will no longer be held in Wilton’s, which is an epic venue.
eating: on a recent weekend in the New Forest with family, I was faced with the prospect of cooking for six - but without using meat, fish, eggs or gluten. Like a sadistic version of Ready Steady Cook. Fortunately, I was armed with two Ottolenghi cookbooks - Simple and Test Kitchen - which saved the day: despite the constraints, the meal didn’t feel like we were just eating sides. Thanks Yotam!
No shade - I’m a history graduate. But I couldn’t run the Treasury.
While I’ve been writing this, he has been made a PPS in the Cabinet Office. A prediction: he’ll be in the Cabinet before the next general election.
Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, etc.
They’ve been more vocal about the idea in government. Hearing the King say that his government’s legislative programme will be “mission led” reminded me of when the Tories had the Queen talk about “getting Brexit done” and “levelling up”…
A sentence identified at random, but which gives you an idea: “Dynamic capabilities help organisations develop and improve resources such as knowledge and are different from static operational capabilities, which are part of an organisation’s existing operations and resource base.”
This will require all venues with a capacity of over 100 to make preparations in case there is a terrorist attack, by providing staff training, conducting risk assessments and drawing up specific security plans. Yes, that includes your local pub/restaurant/church…
I think David Thomas's analysis of the new government is superb. I confess that I learned a great deal about the likely direction of travel. Extremely well written, too. Bravo!