The apparently imminent meltdown of the Labour Government in the UK is a fitting marker for the tenth anniversary of Brexit: that “world-historical” mistake of 2016 in which a bare majority of the British electorate convulsed and apparently directed their government to leave the European Union. After years of high political drama, the Conservative Government under Boris Johnson, finally “Got Brexit done.” The Tories then stumbled on in government for another couple of years (due at least as much to an unsavory sharply left-wing domination of the Labour Party) until both the party and the public were exhausted.
Labour, under the deliberately bland Sir Keir Starmer, then positioned itself as a sufficiently centrist “non-Tory” option and swept into office int he General Election of 2024. The rejection of the incumbents after 14 years and 5 prime ministers was no surprise. Their internal divisions over Brexit continued to haunt them and they were stale in terms of both policies and personalities. It was clearly time for a change. Since the British electoral system (like ours) does not provide for proportional representation, small shifts in support can make for big shifts in the number of seats. In 2024, the Tories faced the additional problem of a resurgent right/populist party under Nigel Farage, the bête-noire of the Brexit movement which bled of some of its support in close contests. As a result, Labour won its largest victory ever, securing 424 seats out of 650.
Starmer should have been on top of the world: an apparent mandate for change and a huge parliamentary majority. There were three problems, however. First, actual mandates to do anything in particular amid the broad array of issues and interests which voters face are exceedingly rare (despite the common proclamations of victorious politicians). Second, Starmer while undoubtedly a capable lawyer and administrator, lacks both popular charisma and the internal party ‘oomph’ to marshal his troops. Third, as Boris Johnson said back in 2013, the problem with all the Brexit ‘hoo-hah’ is that it was a distraction from the deep and long-term problems which Britain faces: inadequate adaptation to a post-industrial economy, post-imperial hangover, economic inequality, dysfunctional labor markets, creaking educational system, and wheezing social services; to name a few. Stated otherwise, the country faces nigh-unto-intractable problems which require bold/radical solutions for which there is no national consensus and no charismatic leadership.
Britain thus faces a situation not all that different from most other well-off countries. It’s not that they are “ungovernable” in the sense that “The Economist” and other commentators usually mean. These are not matters which can be fixed by repairing the (real and significant problems of a particular political system (e.g., Britain’s first past the post parliamentary system, the division of powers between France’s Executive and Legislative branches, or the abuses inflicted on the US political system by the two-party duopoly). It’s “ungovernable” in the sense that there are fundamental problems facing society and the electorate as a whole is unwilling (unable?!) to address them.
In contrast, in the dire situation faced by Britain in 1940-41, the country rallied around Churchill’s leadership and demonstrated an extraordinary national willingness to (literally) go to war to address it. Alas Starmer is no Churchill (nor, for that matter is any other national politician on the British stage). Perhaps it is only in the clearest and direst of circumstances that there is a mandate for decisive action. Despite the urgings and table-poundings of the AOC/Bernie wing (or, for that matter, the MAGA-ized Republicans); there is no consensus and therefore no mandate in the US to address our version of this problem set. (It is also useful to recall in this circumstance, that FDR had no mandate for his active support of Churchill/the “Allies” as he slid the US to a pre-war footing until Pearl Harbor.)
The second lesson from the British situation is more directly aimed at the US Democratize Party. Neither having the “right answers” to the nations policy questions, nor having a working legislative majority are sufficient, even both together would not be enough.
The Dems, in their wildest dreams, will not command legislative majorities comparable to what Labour now has. With what they’re like to have, the temptation to muddle and temporize remains great. The threat of fringe elements invoking ritual purity to halt incremental progress on any number of policy fronts is also great. Imagine what the current administration could accomplish if they had the Freedom Caucus fully on board. It might be scary, but it’s certainly imaginable. Now try to imagine the Dems getting their collective act together to remedy the policy crimes and abuses of the current administration and to actually address and at least make a dent in some of the other pressing problems facing the country. It’s a utopian fantasy.
As I noted in “A Poisoned Chalice” (020626), the Dems risk looking like failures, even if they sweep the boards in 2028. Even if they had a leader, a program, and an unheard-of degree of party discipline, they would still have to spend so much time cleaning up after the current disaster and the impacts of the kinds new policies initiatives would be too long-term in their effects to do them much short-to-medium electoral good.
So the underlying problem lies with “the people,” not the party (or even the parties). The “ungovernability” issue current bedeviling the English chattering classes is transatlantic; indeed, it is global. It is societal, not governmental or even constitutional.
Neither elites nor the “masses” have a clear and coherent policy program. MAGA only works if you believe in historical fiction and have an extremely short-sighted view (and no sense of social justice). Socialism has been sufficiently successful through the 20C (even in the US) so as to be stale for the 21C. New formulations are needed—across the political spectrum. The clock is ticking.
Labour, under the deliberately bland Sir Keir Starmer, then positioned itself as a sufficiently centrist “non-Tory” option and swept into office int he General Election of 2024. The rejection of the incumbents after 14 years and 5 prime ministers was no surprise. Their internal divisions over Brexit continued to haunt them and they were stale in terms of both policies and personalities. It was clearly time for a change. Since the British electoral system (like ours) does not provide for proportional representation, small shifts in support can make for big shifts in the number of seats. In 2024, the Tories faced the additional problem of a resurgent right/populist party under Nigel Farage, the bête-noire of the Brexit movement which bled of some of its support in close contests. As a result, Labour won its largest victory ever, securing 424 seats out of 650.
Starmer should have been on top of the world: an apparent mandate for change and a huge parliamentary majority. There were three problems, however. First, actual mandates to do anything in particular amid the broad array of issues and interests which voters face are exceedingly rare (despite the common proclamations of victorious politicians). Second, Starmer while undoubtedly a capable lawyer and administrator, lacks both popular charisma and the internal party ‘oomph’ to marshal his troops. Third, as Boris Johnson said back in 2013, the problem with all the Brexit ‘hoo-hah’ is that it was a distraction from the deep and long-term problems which Britain faces: inadequate adaptation to a post-industrial economy, post-imperial hangover, economic inequality, dysfunctional labor markets, creaking educational system, and wheezing social services; to name a few. Stated otherwise, the country faces nigh-unto-intractable problems which require bold/radical solutions for which there is no national consensus and no charismatic leadership.
Britain thus faces a situation not all that different from most other well-off countries. It’s not that they are “ungovernable” in the sense that “The Economist” and other commentators usually mean. These are not matters which can be fixed by repairing the (real and significant problems of a particular political system (e.g., Britain’s first past the post parliamentary system, the division of powers between France’s Executive and Legislative branches, or the abuses inflicted on the US political system by the two-party duopoly). It’s “ungovernable” in the sense that there are fundamental problems facing society and the electorate as a whole is unwilling (unable?!) to address them.
In contrast, in the dire situation faced by Britain in 1940-41, the country rallied around Churchill’s leadership and demonstrated an extraordinary national willingness to (literally) go to war to address it. Alas Starmer is no Churchill (nor, for that matter is any other national politician on the British stage). Perhaps it is only in the clearest and direst of circumstances that there is a mandate for decisive action. Despite the urgings and table-poundings of the AOC/Bernie wing (or, for that matter, the MAGA-ized Republicans); there is no consensus and therefore no mandate in the US to address our version of this problem set. (It is also useful to recall in this circumstance, that FDR had no mandate for his active support of Churchill/the “Allies” as he slid the US to a pre-war footing until Pearl Harbor.)
The second lesson from the British situation is more directly aimed at the US Democratize Party. Neither having the “right answers” to the nations policy questions, nor having a working legislative majority are sufficient, even both together would not be enough.
The Dems, in their wildest dreams, will not command legislative majorities comparable to what Labour now has. With what they’re like to have, the temptation to muddle and temporize remains great. The threat of fringe elements invoking ritual purity to halt incremental progress on any number of policy fronts is also great. Imagine what the current administration could accomplish if they had the Freedom Caucus fully on board. It might be scary, but it’s certainly imaginable. Now try to imagine the Dems getting their collective act together to remedy the policy crimes and abuses of the current administration and to actually address and at least make a dent in some of the other pressing problems facing the country. It’s a utopian fantasy.
As I noted in “A Poisoned Chalice” (020626), the Dems risk looking like failures, even if they sweep the boards in 2028. Even if they had a leader, a program, and an unheard-of degree of party discipline, they would still have to spend so much time cleaning up after the current disaster and the impacts of the kinds new policies initiatives would be too long-term in their effects to do them much short-to-medium electoral good.
So the underlying problem lies with “the people,” not the party (or even the parties). The “ungovernability” issue current bedeviling the English chattering classes is transatlantic; indeed, it is global. It is societal, not governmental or even constitutional.
Neither elites nor the “masses” have a clear and coherent policy program. MAGA only works if you believe in historical fiction and have an extremely short-sighted view (and no sense of social justice). Socialism has been sufficiently successful through the 20C (even in the US) so as to be stale for the 21C. New formulations are needed—across the political spectrum. The clock is ticking.
RSS Feed