There is a big difference between 1997 and 2024 for Labour
Published by The i paper (18th March, 2024)
The Tories are panicking again as they look at the polls, contemplate their looming electoral wipeout after another disastrous week at Westminster and debate whether to ditch another prime minister. Never mind that Rishi Sunak is their fifth leader in eight years, nor that the public is tired of their endless strife and selfish games. His weak handling of the storm over a big party donor, taking so long to condemn Frank Hester’s racism, stoked doubts over an inept Downing Street operation after a dull Budget failed to shift the dial. So there is talk of another coup with claims that the right will rally behind Penny Mordaunt as his replacement, while Defence Secretary Grant Shapps is reportedly “on manoeuvres”.
They are, of course, clutching at straws in desperation to avoid catastrophe at the forthcoming election after 14 dismal years in office. Perhaps a new leader might salvage a few seats. But maybe it would merely remind voters how this party has betrayed Britain with ceaseless civil wars, leading to the disaster of Brexit and then Boris Johnson and Liz Truss being handed the keys to Downing Street. Polls reflect a desire to boot them out of power with as hard a kick as possible, giving Labour a steady 20-point lead. There is no sign yet of the softening of the polls seen even in the months before Tony Blair’s 1997 landslide against another clapped-out Tory regime ripped apart by feuding.
Yet, there is one big difference between then and now – and that is the striking lack of enthusiasm, let alone excitement, at the prospect of a new government. There is a mood afoot that definitely wants rid of the despised Tories – whoever leads them – but seems sceptical that Labour will make much of difference beyond possibly marginal improvement in competence. This was seen with a recent YouGov poll confirming the public’s low expectations, showing that twice as many voters thought Sir Keir Starmer a better choice to lead us due to Sunak’s deficiencies rather than his own strengths. Only one in five people think he will make a good prime minister, while a majority think he is doing badly as Labour leader.
Clearly Labour is benefiting from the collapse of confidence in the Tories, who seem determined to keep machine-gunning themselves in their feet at every opportunity while repulsing significant chunks of the electorate. Yet despite such a strong lead, that poll found Labour’s net favourability rating stands at minus 12. Even among its own supporters, fewer than one in five said they “actively support them”, matching levels seen among those voters sticking with the Tories. So why is Labour not more popular – and what does this mean for Starmer if he follows Blair into power?
Partly this is down to dull leadership, so determined to win that it rules out anything that might actually inspire or divide voters. Sir Keir Starmer made a crucial mistake in failing to sell himself to the electorate in the months after winning the top job, presenting himself as a competent technocrat rather than trying to tell his personal story, which is more interesting than might appear from his rather wooden exterior. Meanwhile the adulation for shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves as she talks about fiscal rules is absurdly overdone. Certainly their plan is working according to the polls – but there is no excitement, no fizz, no sense that they are driven by ideas to really change their country or a burning desire to banish despondency with Westminster.
Instead this cautious pair follow the New Labour template. Even the concept of having another north London lawyer in charge feels wearily familiar. Blair and Gordon Brown came up with the idea of sticking to Tory spending plans for two years in order to stifle the economy as an issue, since it was seen as a strength for their foes. Now Labour is comfortably ahead on being trusted to run the economy after the chaos of Brexit, Johnson and Truss – yet they repeat this trick, also used by the Tories when ousting Brown in 2010. So they rule out ideas that need cash, hug Tory policies and waffle vaguely about reform, despite deep public concern over so many parts of the state from defence to social care. “We did not need to do this and end up looking even duller,” said one party source.
So even when Starmer makes an interesting speech – such as last week when talking about his flute-playing past and pledging to place arts at the heart of his government – the policies are minimalist, the substance is weak and his words are accompanied by warnings they will not splash cash. “We will build a new Britain out of the ashes of the failed Tory project,” he declared. But few voters believe such rhetoric in this age of public scepticism, faith in politics shredded by self-serving charlatans and tribal point-scoring in parliament while huge issues confronting the country are left ignored. Meanwhile they watch another sleazy scandal erupt in Westminster, this time involving a racist Tory donor whose riches come from lucrative state contracts.
Yet as Sir John Major once rightly said, the politician who never made a mistake has never made a decision. He was ousted by a Labour leader who went on to fuel the public cynicism with inflated promises, disastrous foreign policies and sordid money-grabbing activities after leaving office. Now if Starmer manages to follow Blair by reaching Downing Street, the mood is likely to be one of relief at seeing the back of the toxic, feuding Tories rather than one of national jubilation – and even if Labour wins with a bigger majority than in 1997, its honeymoon is likely to be short-lived given the scale of inherited problems and grim global climate.
“Things can only get better” has been succeeded by “surely they can’t be any worse”. But is that really sufficient for our troubled country?