Labour’s First “Winning” Year
Obviously, everyone and their mother has been writing about the Labour government, one year on from the large majority gained at the General Election. Most of the commentary centres around a failure of leadership, and almost universal derision of the policies thus far delivered. Taxes, and welfare, U-turns, and then the second memorable image since Keir Starmer’s silent visit to Southport, that of Chancellor Rachel Reeves crying in the House of Commons.
There is little point echoing all the commentators, even though some of them have made worthy contributions and analysis. They are right on the politics of envy, they have correctly identified issues with growth, immigration, and the cost of living crisis. However, the missing ingredient rarely touched upon is the basis on which Labour governs, in contrast to the Conservatives.
In theory, the Conservative goal is to make as many people affluent as possible, so they vote Conservative. For Labour, the goal is to make as many people as possible poor, so they have to vote Labour. While it is simplistic to say that rich people tend to vote Conservative and those without wealth vote Labour, this is still a generalisation that fits.
It is certainly a theory that is backed by what Keir Starmer and friends have done over the past year. Almost every move, every policy has been delivered to deter wealth and the sources of wealth, so as to create more Labour voters. This point has been highlighted by reports of the exodus of thousands of millionaires from the UK over the past year. It is also highlighted by the flagship policy announced just before the election of the imposition of 20% VAT on school fees. This was criticised at the time for being something which was not going to raise significant revenue, and would cause distribution to the education system. But these criticisms failed to understand the point of the move. VAT on school fees means fewer people going to public schools and more going to state schools. And of course, the understanding is that people educated in state schools are more likely to vote Labour. Almost everything is not about either raising money, it is simply about creating an environment where as many people as possible either want to or have to vote Labour. Higher taxes, greater borrowing, selling the Chagos, all of these are a mechanism to beggar the country so it votes Labour.
On this basis the past 12 months have been a masterclass in socialist Labour policy and execution. Even Reeves crying in The Commons, and spooking the money markets, worked perfectly to discredit the country, and discourage investment. The surprise is that rather than the government rejoicing that everything has gone to plan in running things down to the ground, there is still the awkward spectacle of Prime Minister’s Question time of a “work in progress” / “more to do to fix the mess”. Actually, what could be said is that unlike most other governments both here and abroad Labour has delivered exactly what it believes in, even though those who are in charge are not even aware of it.
BBC And Its Bias
It is easy to take pot shots at the BBC. Indeed, it is becoming easier by the day. Just why it should not be a subscription service like Netflix or Amazon Prime beggars belief. Indeed, if it had played its cards right some years ago it could have dwarfed the streaming services easily by now. But this has not happened. Perhaps because big state likes what is effective a state broadcaster, and it is still the case that for many license fee payers the BBC has the kind of religious surrogate function that the NHS has. In fact, both organisations have had in recent years been marred by scandal. For the BBC, famous presenters and DJs have been the typical fodder. Whereas for the NHS, Lucy Letby has dominated in the past couple of years, and is ongoing, as are periodic scandals such as Mid-Staffordshire, Bristol Royal Infirmary. Amazingly, the pedestal this countries most impressive failed concept still has an almost religious esteem. But of all of the issues the main point is actually what expectations can we have of these institutions. If there was a train crash every week, or a plane crash every month, the powers that be would not be allowed to go on.
However, the BBC seems to have a Teflon quality, verging on being bullet proof. In the good old days, let us say the late 20th century it did apparently concentrate on reporting facts, rather than provide any bias one way or the other. However, it could be argued that as it has come under pressure regarding the license fee and funding, it has been forced to commit to trying to please all the people all the time. This has resulted in what seems to be exactly the opposite result to what it was intent on achieving: managing to disenchant almost everyone.
While one would assume that the broadcaster will continue to have significantly more than nine lives. Part of this is that apparently no politician seems to want defunding the BBC on their record, and part that doing so would somehow be an admission of the BBC as a failed concept. Once again, rather like the NHS, the original concept of having a state broadcaster, something that third world countries delight in, was probably something that the UK should never have had. Even if we did, well into the 21st century it really has become an anachronism, and not in a good way, like the Wimbledon dress code.
The America Party
The conceived wisdom is that whatever happens in the US happens in the UK, between one and five years later. This can refer to fashion, music, or politics. We saw this with Rock music, the move to the right in the 1980s with the Reagan / Thatcher era, and perhaps worst of all woke / political correctness. However, in a development that can be regarded as quite flattering to the UK political system, we have what is apparently a disruptive new force for US politics. This was perhaps inevitable after the bromance between President Trump and Elon Musk collapse. Interestingly though, Musk has not been able to let it lie, something which one would have thought he would given the need to address his many business commitments. But it would appear he does have the bandwith and the desire to be as disruptive in politics as he has been in EV’s, technology and space.
Of course, the rationale for the America Party is not a million miles away from that of Reform here in the UK. The desire to break the hegemony of what is perceived as a Uniparty, the Democrats and Republicans, and the swamp of Capitol Hill. This is quite a challenge. It is also a challenge that so far we do not know will be met. While polls here in the UK suggest that Reform is well ahead of the pack, the perception of its being a one man party in the form of Nigel Farage is difficult to shake. While Musk may be ready to do a Farage, and he certainly has the charisma / profile, breaking the US system could arguably be even more difficult than the UK. Trump co-opted the Republican party ahead of his first 2016, and it may be said that he only one with the massive political apparatus of an established party. Rather than forming a new party, he could have signed up to the Republicans in the run up to the end of Trump’s second term. Nevertheless, given that unless there is a lot of legal jiggery pokery, Musk would not be eligible to be President, perhaps having his own new party represents a consolation prize versus being in the White House?
