October 9, 2023 - 3:00pm
Liverpool
The atmosphere at Labour’s annual conference stands in defiant contrast to the prevailing winds of British politics. Pessimism has captured those on the Right, with the generals of Brexit most likely to chastise the government on issues such as immigration, policing and tax. Foreboding is rife among Scottish nationalists too, with talk even of a possible collapse after last week’s by-election defeat. And while the Liberal Democrats remain the virtuosi of local campaigns, they’ve failed to create a wedge on the issue of EU membership. While they are likely beneficiaries from Tory demise across the English South, that is also to the advantage of Keir Starmer.
After that thunderous result in South Lanarkshire last week, Labour is truly starting to believe.
Attendees at conference, including those sceptical of Starmer, are buoyed by the prospect of power. Representatives from multiple trade unions told me they knew that they were marginal actors — but that they still stood to benefit from a majority Labour government. The volatility of politics in recent years also means those who dislike Starmer — or who are concerned by the absence of a strategy for government — can reasonably speculate that things could quickly change after any election win.
One surprising advantage in appearing to not believe in very much is that others presume you are amenable to persuasion. Perhaps that is why hardcore Remainers are endorsing Starmer — despite the man himself ruling out even membership of a customs union. Elsewhere, those who favour proportional representation are convinced he can still be won round, despite a spokesperson briefing earlier this year how the Labour leader has a “long-standing opposition” to electoral reform. For much of the last 13 years, people would slice their membership cards in two over such points of difference, but the possibility of power offers a strange and curious alchemy.
Yet the substance of what Labour is offering is as threadbare as emotions are high. On Sunday, Angela Rayner outlined how her party would address the housing crisis. The plan is to oversee the building of 1.5 million homes over five years, primarily through “getting tough” on developers. But even this target — of 300,000 new homes a year — is a tacit admission of failure given it is estimated Britain needs to build more than 440,000 a year, for a quarter of a century, to solve the housing crisis. On perhaps the single biggest issue facing under-45s, Labour is yet to arrive at the starting line.
Then there is the quest for growth. Speaking to the BBC on Sunday morning, Keir Starmer was adamant that “stability” was the missing ingredient in order for Britain’s economy to bounce back. Given productivity has stagnated for 15 years, this seems deeply unserious. Does anyone actually believe the answer to the country’s “productivity puzzle” is simply a well-coiffed prime minister who won’t say something insane when they think nobody is watching?
The Green Prosperity Fund, much lauded by Rachel Reeves, would cost as much as £28 billion in the final year of any first term. The pretence remains that this will somehow be funded through changing planning regulations and the crossing of fingers. In its own way the “Starmer project”, currently being feted even by the likes of the Financial Times, is as delusional as anything conjured up by Liz Truss.
Finally, there is the NHS. Here too Labour is prone to highlighting problems on an almighty scale, yet proceeding to act with caution verging on impotence. Over 7.6 million people are presently on NHS waiting lists. In England there are 47,000 vacancies for nurses, and 110,000 vacancies overall — a figure which could rise to over 300,000 by the late 2030s. The idea that such a challenge can be addressed through funding overtime for existing staff — as was proposed by Labour on Sunday — is absurd. It is akin to screaming “fire” as one’s house burns down and then brandishing a water pistol.
The exuberance at Labour Conference is palpable, but the vacuum of policy is a powerful counterweight. Have so many ever been so excited by so little? For now the possibility of removing the Conservatives, and gaining political power, is intoxicating. But it’s hard to imagine that will long endure once Labour is tasked with solving the country’s myriad problems. Nigel Farage knows this as he plots the future of the British Right from opposition. The question is: does the Left?
Aaron Bastani is the co-founder of Novara Media, and the author of Fully Automated Luxury Communism.
AaronBastani
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeFlicked through the news today, saw that Mark Carney is endorsing Rachel Reeves as the next chancellor.
The same Mark Carney who not so very long ago said in an interview with the FT that the UK’s GDP was 90% of Germany’s prior to Brexit but – at the time of the interview – was less than 70% of it. And was promptly handbagged by a prominent professor of economics who said that comparing 2 economies using prevailing market rates was nonsense and that you should be comparing purchasing power parity instead.
Not a good look for Carney. His pronouncements don’t really carry the weight that he thinks they might.
The Labour conference has the whiff of a crowded mini-van of over-excited teenagers hurtling towards a very big and very unyielding brick wall.
“..His pronouncements don’t really carry the weight that he thinks they might..”
Carney is an economist. In my book the pronouncements of economists carry about as much weight as astrologers.
Whenever someone portentously speaks of The Economy, one imagines a man in a toga with a disembowelled lamb before him, speaking very much in the same manner.
The guy is definitely Carney, although I’m not sure if the slaughtered creature is a lamb or a Brexit voter.
Well said! It is Lalaland. Rachel performed well. Much talk of Iron Lady will and discipline. But believing that a CV with the ‘Bank of England
Economist’ blazoned on it is a plus just will not wash. The Bank and its lauded independence crashed our economy long before La Truss got on the stage. Carney and Bailey should be serving time for their inflationary QE insanity. She is a creature of the entitled failed progressive London Blob. She shows absolutely no true feel for the world of private enterprise. Very grim. Its a Say Nothing Hide in A Hole Biden playbook. Lets see if it works a year from now.
In amongst all the gas-bagging that will go on at the Labour conference, there will be 326785 mentions of Tories, 274896 mentions of how men are actually women and vice-versa, 173949 mentions of solidarity with Palestine, Hamas and Hezbollah, and 9346 mentions of Brexit. There will even be half a dozen mentions of working class people. But I bet there will not be a single mention of three little words: Large Language Models.
But it’s ok: I don’t believe the dinosaurs who looked up and saw that bright light streaking across the sky, equated it with their demise either.
As Mr Bastani says a few times in his article, the problem in Britain today is that there are too many old people. Old people own the houses (most of the wealth), the demands of old people are crushing the NHS, old people have pensions, old people do not believe in NetZero, old people still expect to eat meat (as long as there doesn’t have to be too much chewing) and, the worst thing, old people don’t vote for the right people. Socially, old people don’t obey the needs of the day, they don’t kneel before the TV to support BLM because their joints are too stiff.
Any party or government which can solve the problem of ‘too many old people’ can make Britain successful again. The NHS would become perfect in the use of pronouns, young people could have a choice of houses and we could all become vegan overnight. Take away 18 million old people and immigration would no longer be an issue. Could we fly 18 million old people to Rwanda?
Labour is gunshy from all the artillery they pointed at themselves over the last two election cycles.
“The public didn’t vote for us when we were actively working to undermine our own campigning, when we were accussing ourselves of anti-semtism and when we couldn’t find a workable position on Brexit with both hands and a map. From this, we somehow conclude that the public didn’t like our actual policies”
Honestly, this crowd treat the electorate like toddlers – except that they’re somehow, determined to hide pieces of chocolate cake under some nice broccolli.
“Our friends in Hamas & Hezbollah”. The party which thought it was a good idea to present the man who made this statement as their preferred candidate to lead this country are now our de facto Govt in waiting.
When we describe a government as “incompetent”, realistically what we mean is that they have not been very good at tackling difficult problems. It does not mean they have not been very good at tackling easy ones.
Empty talk about “getting tough” and the like assumes the latter. Be a bit tougher and all will be fine. Let’s hope Labour has a bit more up it’s sleeve than this. We are well off track as a country and need to accept we need some real change.
The problem is that the one debate they really need to have is whether they should settle for EU single market membership via a trade deal or association deal, or wait for a shift in British demographics to have a referendum on the euro in the early 2030s if not before.
They really are a party short of ideas. I’ve never seen this more pronounced with Labour, even under the New Labour template.