It’s been a while since I commented on the state of His Majesty’s United Kingdom. (See 031723: Britannia Rules the Waves, 090922: Bye, Bye, Boris, 121021: Brexit II, and 091520: Brexit). I have been roundly critical of the hapless Tories in terms of both policies and personalities. After five prime ministers, four elections, and fourteen years in power, they’re clearly out of gas (or, I should say, in this new era: “Their batteries are out of charge”). Now the voters have spoken.
Labour’s victory would be shocking in its magnitude if it weren’t so extensively foreshadowed by polls and pundits alike. Labour received 34% of the popular vote, but with the British “first-past-the-post” electoral system, this translates into 412 seats in the House of Commons (~63%). As a result, Sir Keir Starmer’s new government can pretty much drive the boat where they want, even though. After all, the UK effectively has an elected dictatorship with only limited judicial review, a toothless King, a House of Lords with only a couple of teeth, and no real political counterweight to the Commons. But, …but….
Bearing in mind Marx’s comment about the limits of human free will in the face of embedded history, Labour can do little to salvage the Brit’s well-entrenched pride (arrogance?) both in terms of the projection of power around the world and as to its global competitiveness. Secular decline is the key descriptor here.
Labour also published a manifesto of the policies on which it was running. Unlike the party platforms in the US (which are typically only so much pabulum), it will be expected to stick to it (more or less). Count this as a directional indicator and minor constraint.
Certainly there is much to be done and doable regarding the National Health Service, tax and regulation, energy and climate, and a host of other domestic issues. The legislative structure (the aforementioned House of Lords and the highly-distorting pro-duopoly electoral system for the House of Commons) has been incoherent for well over a century. Globally, Britain will punch above its weight, but with only limited effect.
The question about which I’m most curious is: What to do about Brexit? It was the central political issue in the UK for over a decade but you have to work to find it in the Conservatives’ Manifesto (no great surprise, since it’s been a complete clusterf&%#). It’s extremely well-buried, too, in the Labour document.
Polls show that there has been a clear majority that wishes Brexit hadn’t happened. Many “Leavers” regret their stance and recognize that the (mostly Tory) leadership of the “Leave” campaign misled them about the process and effects of their vote. The tortuous process from the vote (June 2016) to final agreement (January 2020), followed by a “transition period” (officially through July 2021; but effectively still on-going) has only highlighted the intricate ways in which economies and cultures were integrated. Indeed, since 2022, a clear majority of British voters have indicated affirmative support for rejoining the EU.
Well, that’s not going to happen. From the EU’s perspective, the excruciating process and disingenuous behavior of several British leaders left a very bad taste in their mouths. After a period of “should we or shouldn’t we?” about British entry into Europe in the 1950s-170s, the UK finally jumped in, only to jump out 40ish years later. Who can have confidence that they wouldn’t flip-flop again? Presumptive PM Starmer has already acknowledged that the UK won’t rejoin the EU formally “in [his] lifetime.”
Nonetheless, despite PM Theresa May’s famous declaration (2016) that “Brexit means Brexit,” [WTF does THAT mean??] there was always a lot of ambiguity around what avenue the UK would pursue. Many less severe interpretations around the complexities of their relationship with the EU could easily have been implemented under the general rubric. Indeed, a large part of the Torys’ problem is that they chose the hardest path—voluntarily. But if there’s no going back on the formalities, there’s an awful lot of the damage—symbolically, practically, and culturally—that can be undone.
At the same time, a large part of Labour’s problem is that they finally went along with Boris and the Tory’s exit strategy rather than continuing the fight to remain. A sharp riposte to Theresa May articulating a minimalist exit strategy might well have been effective (but for the fact that Labour’s then-leader was a bit of a cranky anti-globalist).
So, they don’t have much to crow about either. Going forward, Labour’s Manifesto goes on about “rebuilding relationships” in Europe with a wholesale lack of specificity. On the hustings (Brit-speak for campaign speech), Starmer backed down from rejoining the EU, citing the domestic political turmoil such a debate would instigate. However, even without running the public referendum gauntlet again, he’s got a lot of room to smooth off the rough edges of what the Tories wrought.
With the caveats noted above, the British governance model at least nominally allows for action. This is a stark difference from the US experience where split government has been pretty much the norm for two generations (32 of the last 44 years). Even where the House, Senate, and President are of the same party, differing personalities and Congressional independence have made it hard to get too much done. A massive Labour majority could, as a result, enable far more extensive change than the US model allows for. Starmer is not an ideologue and his government will be pretty centrist compared to the oratory on either end of the spectrum, but radicalism is not tied to the extremes, it’s a function of vision and courage.
As I said at the outset, I don’t know that the structural fundamentals of British society could be remedied, but such a jolt –on climate, health, taxes—might at least wake people up and get them engaged in the process of salvaging the situation. Rejoining the EU in any significant way will just have to wait a generation or so until the bad taste of Albion’s perfidy has faded.
Labour’s victory would be shocking in its magnitude if it weren’t so extensively foreshadowed by polls and pundits alike. Labour received 34% of the popular vote, but with the British “first-past-the-post” electoral system, this translates into 412 seats in the House of Commons (~63%). As a result, Sir Keir Starmer’s new government can pretty much drive the boat where they want, even though. After all, the UK effectively has an elected dictatorship with only limited judicial review, a toothless King, a House of Lords with only a couple of teeth, and no real political counterweight to the Commons. But, …but….
Bearing in mind Marx’s comment about the limits of human free will in the face of embedded history, Labour can do little to salvage the Brit’s well-entrenched pride (arrogance?) both in terms of the projection of power around the world and as to its global competitiveness. Secular decline is the key descriptor here.
Labour also published a manifesto of the policies on which it was running. Unlike the party platforms in the US (which are typically only so much pabulum), it will be expected to stick to it (more or less). Count this as a directional indicator and minor constraint.
Certainly there is much to be done and doable regarding the National Health Service, tax and regulation, energy and climate, and a host of other domestic issues. The legislative structure (the aforementioned House of Lords and the highly-distorting pro-duopoly electoral system for the House of Commons) has been incoherent for well over a century. Globally, Britain will punch above its weight, but with only limited effect.
The question about which I’m most curious is: What to do about Brexit? It was the central political issue in the UK for over a decade but you have to work to find it in the Conservatives’ Manifesto (no great surprise, since it’s been a complete clusterf&%#). It’s extremely well-buried, too, in the Labour document.
Polls show that there has been a clear majority that wishes Brexit hadn’t happened. Many “Leavers” regret their stance and recognize that the (mostly Tory) leadership of the “Leave” campaign misled them about the process and effects of their vote. The tortuous process from the vote (June 2016) to final agreement (January 2020), followed by a “transition period” (officially through July 2021; but effectively still on-going) has only highlighted the intricate ways in which economies and cultures were integrated. Indeed, since 2022, a clear majority of British voters have indicated affirmative support for rejoining the EU.
Well, that’s not going to happen. From the EU’s perspective, the excruciating process and disingenuous behavior of several British leaders left a very bad taste in their mouths. After a period of “should we or shouldn’t we?” about British entry into Europe in the 1950s-170s, the UK finally jumped in, only to jump out 40ish years later. Who can have confidence that they wouldn’t flip-flop again? Presumptive PM Starmer has already acknowledged that the UK won’t rejoin the EU formally “in [his] lifetime.”
Nonetheless, despite PM Theresa May’s famous declaration (2016) that “Brexit means Brexit,” [WTF does THAT mean??] there was always a lot of ambiguity around what avenue the UK would pursue. Many less severe interpretations around the complexities of their relationship with the EU could easily have been implemented under the general rubric. Indeed, a large part of the Torys’ problem is that they chose the hardest path—voluntarily. But if there’s no going back on the formalities, there’s an awful lot of the damage—symbolically, practically, and culturally—that can be undone.
At the same time, a large part of Labour’s problem is that they finally went along with Boris and the Tory’s exit strategy rather than continuing the fight to remain. A sharp riposte to Theresa May articulating a minimalist exit strategy might well have been effective (but for the fact that Labour’s then-leader was a bit of a cranky anti-globalist).
So, they don’t have much to crow about either. Going forward, Labour’s Manifesto goes on about “rebuilding relationships” in Europe with a wholesale lack of specificity. On the hustings (Brit-speak for campaign speech), Starmer backed down from rejoining the EU, citing the domestic political turmoil such a debate would instigate. However, even without running the public referendum gauntlet again, he’s got a lot of room to smooth off the rough edges of what the Tories wrought.
With the caveats noted above, the British governance model at least nominally allows for action. This is a stark difference from the US experience where split government has been pretty much the norm for two generations (32 of the last 44 years). Even where the House, Senate, and President are of the same party, differing personalities and Congressional independence have made it hard to get too much done. A massive Labour majority could, as a result, enable far more extensive change than the US model allows for. Starmer is not an ideologue and his government will be pretty centrist compared to the oratory on either end of the spectrum, but radicalism is not tied to the extremes, it’s a function of vision and courage.
As I said at the outset, I don’t know that the structural fundamentals of British society could be remedied, but such a jolt –on climate, health, taxes—might at least wake people up and get them engaged in the process of salvaging the situation. Rejoining the EU in any significant way will just have to wait a generation or so until the bad taste of Albion’s perfidy has faded.
RSS Feed