The Vision Thing

 

Our Labour Government was elected precisely four months ago today.  We might now be expecting  the joy at the dawn of the sunlit uplands to be fading slightly.  Sadly, this vision never actually took off.   The government seems to have been  on the “back foot” from the start. 

This is partly due to inexperience (government is probably more difficult than we spectators, even those who’ve occupied the Opposition Front Bench, think it is), and partly due to inept perception management (which now seems to be called “comms.”) 

Why on earth announce the potentially controversial decision to drop the pensioners’ winter fuel allowance at the start, rather than wait to pack it into the budget? Why not have the sense to recognise that free specs, suites and tickets to posh concerts  would give the hostile press an opportunity to tar them with the same brush as the Tories? Why wait a whole four months to produce a Budget, thus  allowing speculation in the media that every economic evil under the sun might be in it?

There has been no honeymoon, the Tories , “refreshed” by new leadership, are once again neck and neck in the polls, and there is a very real policy that Labour is doomed to be a one term government.

However, this miserable start is perhaps what was to be expected. 

Although our twisted electoral system has given them a  massive Commons majority, the electorate did not vote for Labour.  (Nor, for that matter, did we vote for the Liberal Democrats)  We voted against that Tories.

 Only 33.7% of the votes went to Labour, and when we recognise that the turnout was only 60% ,then only a mere 20%,or one in five of those entitled to vote, give their (grudging?) support to Labour.

The government was not elected  on a wave of popular enthusiasm.  Given the hostile press, prepared to pick holes in anything, however minor, the government does or proposes, it is not surprising that our politics is dominated by small-minded carping criticism.

Glad confident morning never dawned.

Here is an alternative, counter-factual, scenario.

 Suppose Sir Keir Starmer had said on July 5^th, something on the lines of:

 

“  Thank you for giving us a massive Commons majority.

But we recognise that Labour alone  does not really have the support of the majority of you - far from it.

Nevertheless, we recognise  that there is a desperate need for transformational policies to raise our quality of life in Britain to the level of that enjoyed in similar advanced developed countries.

This recognition is shared with the 12.2%  who voted for the Liberal Democrats, and the 6.7% who voted Green.

Together we have 52% of the vote: a rare majority for the transformational policies we need, though we may have marginally different policies on what they are

So, although  with our massive parliamentary majority we do not need to, we invite the Liberal and Greens (and the nationalists if they are interested) to join us in a loose coalition.

The Liberals , with their priorities of liberty and the rule of law, could  take over the Home Office and Justice ministry (and as an extra, Sir Ed Davey could be in charge of a newly created Ministry for Care).  The Greens could be in charge of the Environment and Energy.  The Nationalists could have positions in the Scottish and Welsh Offices.

 In a loose coalition the strict rules of collective responsibility will be relaxed.  These other parties  will not be required to give verbal support to every proposal of the government. Rather than oppose combatively, they will be free to offer, politely, alternative proposals, which we should be happy to consider. We will try to come to agreed positions, but with  our Commons majority other parties will be  no position to bring down the government.

These proposals are on offer. How about it?

 With the backing of the majority of those who voted we can with confidence implement the visionary policies needed to create the modern, innovative, caring, fair and responsible society which our people deserve.”

Fantasy, of course, but it needn’t be.