By Mert Kul, Editor In Chief
As Lenin’s revolutionary dictum states, ‘you probe with bayonets: If you find mush, you push. If you find steel, you withdraw.’
If ever an opponent could be described as mush, it is this Conservative government. They have succeeded in uniting the entire country against them, across traditional political and class interests. Mortgage holders, pensioners and financial institutions are now joined with the poor, public sector workers and renters in being hurt by their ideology and incompetence.
The party is stuck between two equally discredited, outdated visions – a return to punishing austerity or a libertarian, tax cutting agenda which is premised on the idea that the richest in society drive wealth creation.
In contrast, Labour look more united and coherent than at any point in recent memory. Their polling lead over the Tories eclipses those seen before Tony Blair’s landslide win in 1997. The temptation for Keir Starmer, especially given recent market instability, has been to follow in his footsteps and present a so far non-committal and cautious economic programme in his first term.
Politics always involves prioritising goals to an extent. Political actors inherit a reality which is very rarely ideal and where success is far from guaranteed. Parties have to negotiate their vision with the present state and mood of the country, the power and interests of various institutions – be it media barons, corporations and global financial markets – and the impact of external events, such as wars and other international crises out of their immediate control. However, it does not follow from this that political parties must always compromise their principles due to fear of the potential consequences. Present reality can present as much of an opportunity as it does a limitation.
Given the reality inherited by Labour today, their previous vision of ‘tory lite’ – constructed in the aftermath of a resounding election defeat and during a global pandemic – seems redundant in the Britain of 2022 and places an artificial ceiling on what can realistically be achieved in the coming years.
The public mood is one of volatility and anger. The mini budget has directly connected the Tories with the increased cost of living in the eyes of voters in the same way that Labour took the flak for the 2008 economic crisis and the Conservative Major government never recovered from the turmoil of Black Wednesday in 1992. The subsequent reaction to it has led to poll numbers so bad that the political consultancy Electoral Calculus has predicted that were a general election to be held now, not only would the Conservatives be guaranteed to be out of government, they may not even be the official opposition – in one scenario the SNP becomes the largest party.
Today we have a situation where a Labour government could realistically be elected without the backing of the any of the major right-wing tabloids, whose power has weakened significantly since Blair flew down under to meet Rupert Murdoch after he became Labour leader in 1994. The ruthless media attacks which helped undermine Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell will have far less effect on Starmer, so discredited are the tabloids from their slavish support for the Johnson disaster and the Truss farce which has unleashed the financial chaos they now condemn. Free from the historical baggage of the previous leadership, it is now more electorally credible than ever to pursue many of the radical policies they advocated.
A recent Survation poll showed that roughly two thirds of the public believe rail, buses, water, energy and postal services should be publicly owned, building on the consistent rise in support seen for nationalisation in opinion polls since 2017. The latest YouGov poll on tax rates showed that similar numbers (63%) now believe that the rich are not paying enough tax and the tax burden on them should be increased.
Labour’s current support for a £10 an hour minimum wage now seems totally insufficient in the current inflationary crisis. The latest calculation made by the Living Wage Foundation in September already puts the true living wage at £11.95 in London and £10.90 in the rest of the UK. Bumping that rate up to £15 an hour, rejected by the leadership last year, would command the support of almost 60% of red wall voters – a bloc which is crucial for Labour to get back on side. This is supported by polling from British Social Attitudes, which shows that two-thirds of people believe that ordinary working people do not get their fair share of the nation’s wealth, up ten points since 2019.
The same report showed no change in the general public preference for more tax to cover higher spending on public services, with only a modest difference between Conservative and Labour supporters in their level of support for more spending. This is reflected in attitudes towards public sector pay, often demonised by the right as wasteful and unfairly secure in their attempts to pit similarly impoverished workers in the private sector against them. Another YouGov poll showed that 60% of the public believe that public sector wages should rise either in line with or higher than inflation. This includes 51% of those who voted Conservative in 2019, demonstrating an increased societal appreciation of public sector work and an understanding that higher pay is vital to fix the recruitment crisis plaguing hospitals and schools.
It is often said that one should never interrupt their enemies while they are making a huge mistake. Starmer’s success to date has been in being bland, conventional and inoffensive, a blank canvas on which voters can paint what they like and compare it favourably to either the disdain they have for the Tories or the fear they had of the previous Labour leadership. This cannot last.
The current position of the Conservatives is unprecedented and cannot be relied upon to continue. While there are no hard limits to how unpopular parties can be, a recovery of some sort is likely if, as seems inevitable now, Rishi Sunak ascends to the throne and restores even the most basic semblance of discipline and competence.
It will then quickly become necessary for Labour to set out clearly what it is for, with a radical alternative vision to demonstrate to voters that there is a political choice on offer and to markets that a certain and predictable direction of travel is being set out well in advance.
Such is the strength of Labour’s position; it would be quite reasonable to contemplate sacrificing potentially winnable seats for the sake of proposing radical change. Yet as the current environment suggests, the usual trade-off between widening electoral appeal and maintaining ideological principles may not be relevant this time round.
