Retain your optimism, for I firmly believe that no period of Conservative rule has been as abysmal as this one. With recent external shocks compounded by the previous government’s mismanagement, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Rishi Sunak have proven woefully inadequate as leaders. However, let us harken back to 30 years ago when Labour leader John Smith, in a Commons debate ostensibly about “economic issues,” presented a case that still rings true today: “There is ample evidence that this government is deeply untrustworthy and hopelessly incompetent. Their most defining characteristic is their aggressive, bullying, and dogmatic obstinacy, which assumes they are entitled to control without acknowledging the expertise of others.” Smith highlighted crisis after crisis, from Black Wednesday to energy shortages caused by pit closures, showcasing the corruption and dishonesty exposed in the Matrix Churchill affair and the impending disaster of railway privatization.
Smith, though often seen as reserved during his leadership, had the advantage of an inherently flawed and scandal-ridden John Major government. Major’s administration constantly struggled to retain control over the worsening news cycle. Keir Starmer, in many ways, faces a similar situation, but with one crucial difference: Smith knew that a Labour government would bring about a better future, one unrecognizable from the present state.
The resumption of parliamentary activities after the summer recess underscores the unique and novel nature of the debate between the government and the opposition. Starmer begins with a resounding “This is absolutely terrible,” only for Sunak to counter with “You are bad with money, therefore things would be worse under your leadership.” Starmer has an array of issues to address, be it education, sewage, the cost of living crisis, or the NHS. He can confidently argue that the current situation is the worst it has ever been. Meanwhile, Sunak benefits from a media norm where it seems perfectly reasonable to criticize the government on the front page, only to declare in the opinion section that all blame ultimately falls on Labour, despite the lack of evidence or a fair trial.
Labour’s typical response is to demonstrate fiscal responsibility, but this is often too complex to convey effectively. People don’t want to hear a barrage of numbers. Instead, Labour resorts to lowering their ambitions, hoping that smaller or slower promises, such as those concerning childcare or the renewables revolution, will appear cheaper. This approach leads to absurd outcomes where Labour can’t even commit to more humane and cost-effective policies. The example of Yvette Cooper refusing to rule out using a giant barge to house refugees shows their dedication to avoiding the stereotype of a bleeding-heart liberal who would mishandle public funds. The Bibby Stockholm, which has cost £3 million so far, housed only 39 asylum seekers for four days.
Demonstrating their ability to manage public finances is practically impossible for the opposition, especially considering the vast difference since they were last in power. The only argument they can muster is “how could we be worse?” Their attacks make sense, but their follow-through is weak. Labour seems to believe that ambition itself comes with a hefty price tag. Words like hope, progress, and compassion, which are associated with change and a sense of urgency, are now treated as luxuries. In interviews, they face a relentless barrage of “how can we afford to be any different?”
The new shadow cabinet has sidelined more independent voices like Lisa Nandy and Rosena Allin-Khan, replacing them with figures often labeled as Blairites, including Darren Jones and Peter Kyle. However, this characterization is misleading, as these individuals conform to today’s low-hope playbook, reminiscent of Blair’s late era. The landslide victory of Tony Blair, the optimism of D:Ream’s “Things Can Only Get Better” – this is the version of Labor they seek to emulate, one that never succumbed to the Conservatives’ definition of realism.
Describing the government’s failures should be an easy task. Every day, there is an event that should be deeply embarrassing and paradigm-shifting, yet it is quickly eclipsed by something even worse. The prime minister’s direct responsibility for persistent underfunding has left a significant number of children without proper classrooms. While the chaos is widespread and few remain unaffected, it’s challenging to listen to those who almost promise a better future, only to retract their commitments. Currently, both sides are engaged in a squabble over who can better manage our collective despair.
Denial of responsibility! Vigour Times is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
