Election year: from doom loop to Radical Centre
Clement Attlee, Margaret Thatcher and Rory Stewart (image created in Shutterstock)
After 26 years – 13 under Labour and 13 under Conservatives (including five in coalition with the Lib Dems) – of failing to fix the really big and difficult issues, Britain desperately needs to escape from the Conservative-Labour doom loop. The Resolution Foundation’s excellent Stagnation Nation report, and Paul Johnson’s work at the Institute for Fiscal Studies on our unsustainable debt-interest and public finances quagmire say it all. We are now poorer on average than long-considered peers: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, and the Netherlands by up to 21 per cent. Paul Johnson says that 40 years of can-kicking must be replaced with some really big economic policy changes, or we will see eye-watering reductions across several of our biggest programmes (eg health, welfare, education), or even “halving the defence budget”.
Of course, the UK has some latent strengths, comparative advantages and the potential to achieve Thatcher-style “meaningful change”. But right now, our national self-esteem and morale are shot – akin to when Mrs T took over in 1979. Many of our public services are a disgrace and far below European standards. Our productivity and economic growth are towards or at the bottom of the class. We have the greatest social and geographical inequality in the G7. Poverty and low-income figures are shameful and rising. British society is divided and polarised. Our civic peace and harmony – for so long an exemplar to other nations — no longer seems quite so assured.
Economic inequality and social polarisation directly impact politics. Fortunately, and unlike most of the rest of Europe, we don’t do political extremes – not yet. We recoiled from Corbyn, and then from Johnson and Truss. Nigel Farage, impactful political figure that he is, failed seven times to get elected to Westminster. Like Poland, which has just brought back Donald Tusk, we appear to be bucking the populist trend. Starmer and Sunak have both, in their different ways, striven to shift their parties back towards the centre. But here is the key point: if the centre does not get truly radical and break with 40 years of can kicking and 26 years of the Conservative-Labour doom loop, before long we risk following Geert Wilders in The Netherlands, Marine Le Penin France and Donald Trump in the USA.
Business-as-usual single party-only government should have had its day. Turning our country around and averting nastier politics (it has been too nasty already, thank you), requires us to call a halt to the centuries-old pathetic Punch and Judy show theatre culture that corrupts and pervades our political system, at every level of government. It requires our elected representatives to put country and common sense above the ridiculously outdated adversarial and excessively strict whipping culture that Rory Stewart calls out in his book Politics On The Edge.
Our present Westminster system sets precisely the worst example possible to the rest of us. Want a kinder and more cohesive society? Then do not mirror Westminster. Stewart describes the major parties as toxic cartels that need breaking up. Carry on as now, then sooner or later we risk going over the edge. We should take note when Tony Blair and William Hague team up to announce that we need to completely repurpose the British State if we are to survive and thrive in this age of unprecedented accelerating change. Key actions: move to cross-party agreement around the Blair-Hague initiative and introduce the first few irreducible, jointly agreed programmes that require longer than one parliamentary term policy and budget certainties.
It is extraordinary that there is not a single major area where Conservatives and Labour have declared a truce and provided essential certainties in the national interest. Other democratic nations manage it. Yet our major parties cannot find one area of social care, education — or even defence, for heaven’s sake — to sign off together. As a result, we eschew huge savings and efficiencies, bake-in harmful persistent political and national angst, and present an open goal to our competitors. This applies all the more to innovation, science and technology start-ups, and the really big infrastructure projects – the nuclear deterrent, renewable energy, AI, giga-battery development and advanced microprocessor production.
With less than a year till the election, none of the major parties are being honest with the electorate about the scale of changes required. Most significant and worrying is that these scales of change are not currently being contemplated. Current public messaging and hints represent “bungle on” with further stagnation and decline.
We desperately need the deep strategic thinking, leadership, statecraft, sense of mission, and drive of an Attlee or a Thatcher. Our next leader must demand and deliver truly radical competence across Whitehall, at all levels of government, and across our public services. The pursuit of excellence, effectiveness, and opportunity must become the prevailing mindset over bureaucracy and red tape. Side note: neither of these icons had been identified as future stand-out political leaders; they shared the twin hallmarks of deep thinking and patient drive and determination.
It is time to tear up our present constitutional construct and future-proof our entire machinery of government. Here are some examples of the scale of change required.
Government Ministers. We must discard the antiquated principle that ministers are limited to the pool of talent that is to be found in Parliament. Many successful democracies and peer competitors do not inflict this level of self-harm on themselves. Tony Blair and Rory Stewart are right to believe that this is one of the first steps required in the long-overdue modernisation of the machinery of government. We need much more leadership by Task Force. The genius appointment of Dame Kate Bingham and the world-leading success of the Covid Vaccine Task Force model can be replicated across many areas and, especially, for sudden complex cross-government thorny challenges.
Reset the Civil and Public Realm Services. We need a Northcote-Trevelyan once-in-generations reset of the Civil Service. There are some great and dedicated civil servants, but the Rolls Royce descriptor of the whole service has long gone. There is overwhelming evidence that it is unfit for 21st century purpose. Too often it has been the major obstacle to reform on the scale that outside of government would have been considered best practice. Our civil service-led public realm has been responsible for billions of wasted taxpayers’ money. It needs to recruit from a broader mix of appropriately educated and experienced individuals. It must open up to those talented people who wish to contribute part-time and are the better for working concurrently in other fields and cultures. Having worked in and closely with three of the most important government departments and held senior policy roles in the two premier UK cross-government missions in New York and Brussels, I share Rory Stewart’s observations and criticisms of system-wide malfunction.
Devolution. I am not a devolution wonk, but I attended a NewBletchley Panel on this (Future Union report – www.newbletchley.org) a couple of years back. I rate more devolution as a top strategic priority. Given that we are the most centralised state in the West, as well as the most socially and geographically unequal in the G7+, I suspect that this outlier factor has something to do with our stagnation and decline. This requires once-in-centuries transformative change. We should shift 75-80% of funding and civil servants from Whitehall and give them to proven, decent, reasonable, centrist, directly-elected leaders such as Manchester’s mayor, Andy Burnham. The answer to the counter-view — that devolution in Scotland and Wales has performed badly — is that there will initially be sinkers and swimmers across the devolved nations and regions. Pretty quickly, or eventually in one or two places, the sinkers’ electorates will demand best practice from their leaders too. Contentious point: whilst at it, review the Barnett Formula for the 21st century. Resilience point: more devolution strengthens democracy and reduces the danger of a future British Trump or another Corbyn.
Defence. UK defence is dangerously out of kilter. Radical action is required to keep us safe. If over the last 26 years we have been “Stagnation Nation” (as the Resolution Foundation argues) with respect to our economy, then in defence we have been “Recession Nation”. Our defence capabilities, reputation and spending relative to foes and peers are much diminished. Russia has put its whole economy on a war footing and as soon as he is re-elected in March, Putin will order further major mobilisation. Russian defence spending is increasing by 68% to 6.5% GDP and going up to 30% of public expenditure. Putin is banking on breaking our will and resolve by going for the long war.
We underestimate Russian mass and resilience at our peril. Putin remembers Reagan’s defence initiative and spending, which played a significant part in breaking the Soviet Union. He thinks the West will tire and repeat the cardinal errors in Crimea, Syria and Afghanistan by turning a blind eye or retreating. He expects Trump and China to assist him. He exploits weakness and every opportunity. We risk feeding his confidence, as we fed Hitler’s in the late 1930s. Key evidence: first class Bronk/RUSI commentary “Europe must urgently prepare to deter Russia without large-scale US support”.
It is irresponsible that we remain in normal peacetime mode. Putin only respects strength. Our minimalist defence posture feeds the risk of war. We must deter it. Neither Clem Attlee nor Margaret Thatcher would have allowed this. They both took significant, radical action to maintain or strengthen our defences. They found the necessary resources in dire economic circumstances. Attlee maintained conscription and took the Labour Party with him as UK played a leading role in the creation of NATO. During the Korean War defence spending rose to 10% of GDP. Thatcher increased defence spending and transformed capabilities, reputation, and armed forces morale. We should increase defence spending forthwith to a minimum of 3% GDP and ramp up the defence industrial base and missile and munitions production, in particular. As William Hague has recently written, we need to move back to a “whole of nation” defence culture and think seriously about introducing Scandinavian-style (very different to old-style) national service. “If you want peace, prepare for war”, as we successfully did in the Cold War.
The Army. The size, fighting power, readiness, and sustainability of the Army is a scandal. It has been assessed by NATO as no longer Tier 1 (ready to fight now). It is graded behind the French Army. General Sir Richard Barrons says it needs 5-10 years to get fit for purpose. The Army has been run down to its smallest level in 150 years. It retains pockets of world class excellence and respect, but it is only capable of deploying slowly at a maximum of heavy/armoured brigade level, with outdated equipment and insufficient sustainability for peer-on-peer war.
Our Army, like any other military, is only as powerful as its weakest domains. It needs resuscitation and must rapidly regain Tier 1 NATO accreditation. Our allies want this as much as the Army does. In getting Putin’s attention and helping to deter further Russian aggression, as early as within 3 years (Poland’s benchmark), there is probably no better use of immediate emergency defence uplift money. Fixing the Army should be designated an urgent national priority. Side note: few, if any, experts are pressing for more than a medium size, properly equipped and sustained army. This is not code for diminishing Navy or Air Force capabilities – 21st century realities reinforce the principle that they should consume larger slices of the defence cake.
If a week is a long time in politics, the upcoming General Election is an age away. Given geopolitical trends, and the pervading sense that there is much that is rotten within today’s British State and political system, there could be significant change between now and then. After 26 years of stagnation and decline we should hope for the long-overdue turnaround. This will depend on whoever fills the Radical Centre Gap and how well they respond. Hopefully it will not be either one of today’s major parties simply carrying on as before. We can surely do better than that.
At the time of writing the latest polls show the two major parties well ahead of the next three – Liberal Democrats, Reform, and Greens — between 7-10%. There are a slew of articles postulating the prospects of one of 3 most likely scenarios: single party solid majority, Labour-Liberal Democrat/Others coalition, and a New Conservatives/Reform coalition.
This politically neutral commentator chips in the following. The two big political parties are likely to remain the major political players. To election strategists: you need to radically raise your game and dare to be honest with the electorate. To our next PM: good luck and please discover your inner Attlee or Thatcher.
The upcoming election will be make or break time for Stagnation Britain. We have to go from Stagnation to Vibrant Nation. We need to end the Conservative-Labour doom loop. We need a change of era to much healthier politics. The Radical Centre turnaround described here is probably the last roll of the dice before further decline and nastier, more extreme, politics beds in. Who takes and owns the Radical Centre wins.
A Message from TheArticle
We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one that’s needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout these hard economic times. So please, make a donation.
