Populism vs. Pragmatism: Labour’s Moment of Reckoning

Facing a restless public and the spectre of populist revolution, Labour must decide whether moderate reforms or bold action will define its legacy.

Labour’s new ‘goals’ aim to address Britain’s challenges, but only a bold vision coupled with machinery for delivery can meet the public’s hunger for transformative change.

Populism stalks the land. In Paris the centre has fallen out of French parliamentary governance. Across the rhine river, Berlin is politically paralysed as the politics of the grand bargain ebbs away. Italy, Hungary and the USA have already succumbed to the populist mood du jour.

The Austrian great statesman, diplomat, chancellor, Prince Klemens von Metternich once observed “The events which can not be prevented, must be directed.”

But as Labour unveiled its not-a-relaunch, it was hard to shake the feeling of bringing a water pistol to a knife fight. Many will wonder if the initiatives currently being taken really can direct events.

Reform is already well on its way to reducing traditional English conservativism to a cadaver. A danger some of us in the politics centre were warning about as far back as June last year.

If the Tories are unable to get their act together, Labour knows what the alternative will be. But with this backdrop in mind, as Starmer (and Labour’s) popularity falls precipitously, one wonders if unveiling new goals in a relaunch really can direct events.

Merits and demerits of goal-setting

There are many virtues in government for goal setting in government. A well-set target can grant impetus, drive and focus for ministers and civil servants in departments of state.

It is always better to set a target and reach 80 percent of it than have never had one. You will do better than had you not bothered with a goal in the first place.

However, despite the virtues of carefully selected targets for ministers, they run the risk of merely serving to communicate to the public the limitations and difficulties of government.

The problem the Prime Minister will discover he is wrestling with is that he can make all the policy speeches he wishes. But the public mood is restlessly demanding transformative governance. The issue is not rhetoric, but policy.

Sir Keir’s new goals hold a worrying echo of call-me-Rishi’s five priorities. When Rishi Sunak unveiled his give priorities, the public did not give him credit for reaching his inflation target, instead the condemned him for all those priorities he failed to meet. So, if this Labour government believes the problem is a lack of policy-goal communication to the public, it is in for a rude awakening.

Despite the fact that this relaunch underscores that the Prime Minister clearly understands the high stakes facing this Labour government, nevertheless setting the goal is the easy part. Pulling the levers of power to obtain desirable outcomes is the hard part.

Just ask Nicola Sturgeon, masterful at the politics of communication, gladhanding and goal setting but truly woeful at actually pulling levers to achieve worthy outcomes. An inability to build the machinery in government to actually achieve the delivery of policy is how Scotland’s incumbent SNP government has become fundamentally unglued. It would be a crying shame if Labour at a UK level repeated these same mistakes.

Go bold or go home

“Any plan conceived in moderation must fail when the circumstances are set in extremes”- Prince Klemens von Metternich

For the good Prince, he was criticizing approaches that didn't take strong stances against potential revolutionary movements or upheavals in Europe. But in our contemporary context it’s still worth pondering on.

Imagine a scenario where a party is in opposition and creates a budget plan based on economic growth to meet what it perceives as a moderately poor economic inheritance. But then, having obtained power, finds itself facing a suddenly much worse economic crisis than anticipated. According to Metternich's quote, their "moderate" plans might not be sufficient to handle the extreme situation.

This is - to put matters simplistically - the spot Labour has found itself.

An example of Labour shifting gears to tougher plans to meet the extreme economic crisis the Tories bequeathed can be found with the winter fuel debate.

For context, after 14 years of Tory governance Rachel Reeves was left with a need to cut spending, boost growth and reform the economy - but without much room for manoeuvre. Thanks to call-me-Dave and boy George’s austerity era, median incomes grew by just 6 per cent between 2009–10 and 2022–23. Prior to the 2008 financial crash and the resultant Great Recession we could have expected growth of 30 per cent in a 13-year period.

So you can understand just how badly living standards have languished for more than a decade in the UK, prior to this new Labour government. And, perhaps, why the Chancellor of the Exchequer is eager to find ways to avoid dumping too much of the burdens on working taxpayers today.

After all, under the Tory austerity era the older generation disproportionately benefited at the expense of younger ones.

“The period from 2010 to 2019 saw the biggest and most sustained cuts in public spending since World War II. These changes accelerated a trend which saw older generations and those with substantial assets doing far better than younger generations.” - ‘The Conservatives and the Economy, 2010–24’, IFS, Carl Emmerson, Paul Johnson, Nick Ridpath, Published on 3 June 2024

Thus when Rachel Reeves announced an end of the universality of the winter fuel allowance, I argued she had justification. Richer pensioners shoulder more of the burden today having not done so previously; with the important caveat that poorest pensioners (i.e. those entitled to pension credit) will continue to get the winter fuel payment

Realistically the onus is on Labour MPs to ensure this government ensures those eligible for pension credit are educated, informed, aware, and able to secure the support they require and are still entitled to.

Facing the populist creedo

The traditional UK political conceptualisation finds itself sitting on the shore watching a tsunami of populism approaching. The two traditional parties are simultaneously unpopular. Albeit the Tories are on a ventilator just passed the terminal ward, and Labour can still just about breathe with an inhaler and walking stick.

People want social, economic and politically transformative changes. And they are not going to wait around for an increasingly mistrusted ‘establishment’ to fail to deliver.

For those of us who reject the easy answers of the populist creedo, we need to realise British, European and indeed ‘western’ politics is on the eve of - if not already at the foothills of - something akin to the 1848 year of revolutions.

The SNP and Farage have both operated successfully for a long time on populism. A product of ‘us’ (the virtuous people) pitied against ‘them’ (the wicked, distant elite).

For Nigel the ‘them’ constitutes foreigners he thinks scares small-town voters. In the nationalists’ case, they add a spice of Anglophobic flair for extra measure.

Indyref and Brexit were simply the beginning for the forces of revolution folks. If Reform and the SNP get their way, more masonry of norms and institutions will fall, cast into the gutter.

Narrative as understanding

Labour simply must get the next few years right or much darker forces threaten to overtake the land with cynically easy answers to complex problems.

And we must do this while knowing unpopular choices will need to be made at times along the way, whether they be on benefits for richer pensioners or on immigration.

My old Emeritus Professor Stephen Ingle once drilled into me during university classes on the narratives of British socialism that imaginative literature can be used to give definition to political thought. Narratives grants us a way to understand political ideas.

Sir Keir Starmer’s relaunch is all well and good, but does it paint a narrative which grants the public a way of understanding Labour’s political ideas, dreams and aspirations? Can this government succeed in pulling levers to obtain desired outcomes?

In both cases it will take much more than rhetorical goal-setting and communication activities. This Labour government must go big on policy, the construction of the machinery of delivery while granting voters a narrative to get behind. Afterall, being technocratic is simply not enough.

---

My work is entirely reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber

Alternatively why not make a one-off donation? All support is appreciate