Unlock Editor’s Digest for free
FT editor Roula Khalaf selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Twice in the last half century, in the swings towards Margaret Thatcher’s Conservatives in 1979 and towards Tony Blair’s New Labor in 1997, elections have brought about a sea change in British politics. Today the country finds itself on the threshold of another momentous change. Voters appear to have decided that, after 14 often turbulent years in office, spanning five prime ministers, the Conservative Party’s time is up. Surely there can be no other conclusion.
No party in power for so long can escape a reckoning, and since at least 1979 no government has left national affairs in such a state. desperate state. The growth of the economy and real wages since 2010 have lagged far behind the historical trend since the war. The tax burden is close to a post-1945 record, public debt is at its highest level relative to output in 60 years. However, public services are crumbling. British defenses are exhausted.
Conservatives can point to external shocks: the aftermath of the financial crisis and the great recession; a global pandemic and Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. However, much of the damage was self-inflicted. Prolonged austerity weakened the public sphere. Liz Truss will be Prime Minister in 2022 carelessly provoked A market crisis. Brexit, the defining project of this Conservative era, has proven to be an act of serious economic self-harm.
During the frenetic EU withdrawal process, Boris Johnson’s government played with the rule of law, undermining public respect for politics and institutions. Britain’s standing was diminished in the eyes of its allies. Rishi Sunak has taken steps to right the ship of state; Jeremy Hunt has been a no-nonsense chancellor. But the prime minister does not seem, even now, the master of a party mired in bickering and corruption. Too often since 2010, the Conservative Party has prioritised managing its fractious party politics over sound governance of Britain.
The Financial Times has no fixed party affiliation. We believe in liberal democracy, free trade and private enterprise, and in an open and outward-looking Britain. This has often aligned us more with the British Conservatives. But this generation of Tories has squandered their reputation as the party of businessmen and their claim to be the natural party of government. The party needs a period in opposition to sort out its internal differences. However, we would not wish to see the Conservatives so shattered that they are unable to fulfil the role of viable opposition that is vital to British politics.
Sir Keir Starmer’s Labor Party is today better placed to provide the leadership the country needs. Five years ago, under the government of left-wing Jeremy Corbyn, the idea would have seemed fanciful. Starmer has transformed what was a chaotic group yearning for the failed interventionism of the 1970s into a credible governing party. Both the Conservatives and Labour, infected by different strains of populism, left the center field in 2019. It is the Labour Party that has once again leaned towards her.
The Financial Times still has concerns about Labour’s interventionist instincts and fervor for regulation. His historic sympathy for unions must be balanced with the interests of business and the general public. His understandable eagerness to distance himself from Corbynism and his tax-and-spend past has forced him to act with excess caution. As with the conservativeshis unrealistic fiscal assumptions will leave him struggling to fund and invest in a bankrupt NHS and others public servicesOn many internal issues, the Labor Party’s answers fall short. Their manifesto too often dwells on the details.
While Britain’s specific challenges are exceptionally difficult, a new government will take power at a time of great upheaval, with the post-war international order in crisis. It must face the same missions as other leading economies: combating climate change and mastering artificial intelligence, and dealing with a rising China, a revisionist Russia and, possibly, a second Trump presidency in the United States.
However, Labour has positive ideas, and Starmer and his shadow chancellor have worked hard to engage with businesses and the City of London and win back their trust. A less ideological approach to government is welcome. The party has rightly raised revitalizing growth At the heart of his program is the stability, predictability and competition he promises, which have been sorely missing from UK governance for years. They are necessary ingredients to attract investments.
The promises of reform the planning system and delegating more powers to the regions points to significant limitations on growth and the ability to build the housing and infrastructure the economy needs. The commitment to fighting climate change and investing in the opportunities offered by green energy stands in stark contrast to conservative efforts to make the green transition a contentious issue.
The biggest danger is that Labour’s growth strategy will prove insufficient and it is regrettable that its reluctance to talk about rebuilding trade relations with the EU closes off another avenue to boost the economy. It may soon have to choose between sharp cuts to public spending, changing its fiscal rules or pulling the fiscal lever; the Institute of Fiscal Studies warns that commitments to increase real-terms spending on health, schools and defence would entail cuts in other public services totalling £9bn a year by 2028. Despite proclaiming itself the party of wealth creation, a Labour government could well end up targeting wealth creators.
Yet few political options are ideal. Britain must choose between a polarizing Conservative Party that has limited its appeal to an ever-narrower segment of the population and a Labour Party that appears to want to govern for the whole country. The risks of leaving exhausted rulers in power outweigh those of forming a new government. Much of the country yearns for a fresh start, and Labour must be given the chance to deliver it.