Labour under Starmer: what do they stand for?

 Keir Starmer will today make a pitch for the political centre ground. Since he took power in 2020 it has been a clear mission of Starmer to shed some of what he sees as the baggage of the Corbyn years, in particular with regards to the stain of anti-semitism, and regain trust in the party. That hasn't been without issues, and it is clear that he has lost the support of some support from the left of the party, who have been frustrated by what they see as broken promises on issues, for example on wide-scale nationalisation and tax increases, as well as scrapping tuition fees.

There cannot have been a more clear demonstration of this than in the sight of the Labour front bench standing, singing God Save the King at their conference this week. There has been a negative reaction from some on the left to this (I saw one online comment that likened it to a BNP rally, and Jeremy Corbyn described it as "very odd"), but Starmer will not mind that at all. There was always a suspicion on behalf of many that Corbyn did not seem particularly 'patriotic', being quizzed before the 2017 election about whether he would use nuclear weapons, and seeming out of touch with the public in the aftermath of the Salisbury Novichok poisonings by Russia. Starmer will be keen to draw a line between them.

It is clear that Starmer and the Labour Party sense an opportunity. One poll yesterday gave Labour a 17 percent lead, their biggest since 2001 under Tony Blair, which, if reflected in an election, would give Labour a strong majority. The recent decisions by the Conservatives on issues such as bankers bonuses and the top rate of tax have made it clear that there are ideological divides between the two big parties, whereas these divisions were less clear with a Boris Johnson led Conservative Party, with its focus on 'levelling up' and his popularity amongst Leave voters in traditionally Labour areas. In short, Labour knows how to oppose a traditional Conservative Party more than a Johnson led, ideologically amorphous one.

And I would make the point that much of what Labour has agreed is actually very traditionally left-wing, or at least traditionally Labour. They have said that a Labour government would reinstate the 45% top rate of tax on high earners. They would invest money into green energy and green industry, as well as other things like adopting a commitment to some form of proportional representation in the future (though Starmer has refused to say it would be one of his election pledges). Labour have promised to spend the revenues from increases on tax on more nurses, again playing up a clear division between the two parties. The question will be whether the Conservatives can convince the country of their ultra-low tax approach in a circumstance when the economy is struggling, or whether there will still be reluctance to trust Labour will their mixture of Blair-style messaging and socialist, or democratic socialist, policy.

What sort of leader will Liz Truss be?

 Liz Truss, to nobody's great surprise, emerged comfortably victorious in the Conservative leadership contest. This was predicted by pollsters from early August, with Yougov getting the result more or less right, as they have done in most recent Labour and Conservative leadership contests. 

The Conservative contest rumbled on throughout most of the summer. Interestingly, most of the campaign events are likely to have had almost no impact on the vote at all, as polling showed Truss significantly ahead of Sunak early on, and most members returned their ballots early, so the majority of events actually took place at a point where they couldn't actually change anything. That said, they were quite revealing about the ideological position that Truss is likely to attempt to run the government from.

It might be useful to first address the ideological position of the Boris Johnson government. Due to the focus on Brexit, and some policies regarding immigration, it is easy to simply view Johnson as having pulled the party to the right. However, it is also true that Johnson was seen by some as being more liberal, due to his previous stint as Mayor of London, and it ignores that the major focus of his election campaign in 2019 was regarding 'levelling up'. This refers to an attempt to improve services, infrastructure and quality of life in under-served areas of the country, that traditionally have voted Labour, and was part of the reason, along with Johnson's unique media appeal, that the Conservatives were able to achieve such success in parts of the north that they had been unable to win in for decades. It was also a departure from Cameron-era fiscal conservatism, or 'austerity', with huge restrictions on spending.

In some senses it looks like Truss will seek to be a more traditional conservative that Johnson, whilst trying to maintain Boris's popularity and Brexit-loving core. Many of the statements she has made refer to taxation, especially with regards to the energy crisis and the National Insurance rise brought in earlier this year, which are very much in line with traditional Conservative Party thought. Sunak, who claimed to dislike higher taxes, was unable to shake off being responsible for the NI rise, with his pleas about fiscal responsibility falling on deaf ears. Additionally, in early exchanges with Keir Starmer, Truss has held firm about not introducing a 'windfall tax' on energy producers and suppliers to pay for her actions on energy prices. The net result of this will be that it will increase debt hugely - though of course Conservatives normally argue that a freer, more libertarian, low tax economy will result in growth to the economy, which will ultimately decrease debt.

This theme is further seen in the actions of the new Chancellor, Kwasi Karteng, who is due to repeal restrictions on banker's bonuses in the City of London. All of this paints a picture of a government which will be unashamedly pro-business. Her appointment of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Business Secretary, a man who once said that there shouldn't be an automatic right to paid holiday, further demonstrates a government which will be highly ideological in its pro-business conservatism. On social issues, Truss has also said that she doesn't view trans women as women, and drew back from including trans conversion therapy in the general ban on conversion therapy. Additionally, her appointments of Therese Coffey as Health Secretary, an individual who is anti-abortion, and Suella Braverman as Home Secretary, who took a staunchly ideological approach in her role as Attorney General, suggests that Truss will look to run a strongly conservative government.

One issue that we have with party leadership contests is that relatively small and unrepresentative groups of people can elect party leaders whose job it is to run the whole country. During the leadership race Truss won the support of the majority of the 170,000 Conservative Party members with her neo-Thatcherite, post-Johnson leanings. Only time will tell if this line will work with the country as a whole.

How much does the monarch actually do in the UK political system?

As a teacher of History and Politics it can often be the case that I find myself correcting misconceptions about the role of the monarchy in students (of all ages). These come in two forms: those that think the Queen is utterly irrelevant politically, and those who believed her to have been immensely powerful. In both of these cases, they are incorrect.

 

Writing, as I am, in the week following the passing of Elizabeth II, I am not offering any viewpoint about the monarchy itself, but it is interesting to have seen some points raised by commentators offering constitutional monarchy as a somewhat ideal form of system. That is to say, that by having a neutral, non-political monarch the system is superior to one where a head of state can attract loyalty and/or division. Ian Leslie quoted Clement Attlee in saying that "the monarchy attracts to itself the kind of sentimental loyalty that might otherwise to the leader of a faction." I am not 100% certain that this is always the case, or rather that one needs a constitutional monarchy, or a monarchy at all, for a head of state to rise above day to day politics.

The traditional view of the role of the monarch in modern British politics is that they 'reign but do not rule'. That is to say, they are notionally in charge but not involved in the day-to-day running of the country. The Queen is constitutionally bound to follow the advice of the government in almost all areas, with her principle role being the appointment of Prime Ministers/governments, and the granting of royal assent to legislation. Whilst the Queen has performed other roles, such as the chairing of meetings of the Privy Council, her other role was that of being a figurehead for the nation.

It should also be said that papers released in recent years have suggested that the Queen may have applied more pressure than some would have imagined on legislation. Newsweek reported in 2021 about 4 laws where the Queen allegedly threatened to withhold consent from signing new legislation, including one about revealing the extent of her personal wealth. This isn't quite the same as vetoing laws, something that hasn't happened since Queen Anne in 1708 with the Scottish Militia Bill. However, this would appear that the Queen did apply pressure occasionally, though obviously on a tiny fraction of those she saw overall. The new King Charles III when still Prince of Wales was comparatively more involved in the affairs of government, regularly contacting the government on a range of issues, from the Iraq War to organic farming. This could raise question about how likely he is to remain silent about government policies with which he disagrees.

Edit: after writing this post, I found an interview with David Cameron where he said that he had help weekly meetings with the then Prince Charles in order to prepare him for the throne, and that Charles never overstepped in terms of influencing governmental affairs.

Stephen Bush in the Financial Times, however, makes the point that the Queen was an outstanding political operator. She had weekly meetings with 14 Prime Ministers, with a 15th recently sworn in, and with only very rare and very limited comments about any ongoing issues. Ultimately the question of whether to have a monarchy is a political one, but she managed to normalise the idea of this and in fact increase support for the monarchy over the course of her time as Queen. Elizabeth II performed a stabilising role for the country which, since 1952, has been through many tumultuous times. It has been an age since the UK has experienced any other monarch, and it will be interesting to see the way that the new king views his role.

Sources:

https://www.ft.com/content/1fb11fc2-7884-40af-a6e9-e68382f07c3f

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/explainers/what-role-monarchy

https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1568538324180107264?t=85irUEsG_vrMw9dWIe__rQ&s=09

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/11/entirely-right-for-charles-to-have-lobbied-ministers-says-david-cameron