Today’s Tories should learn from Thatcher’s optimism
When Nigel Farage announced earlier this week that he had changed his mind and would offer himself as a candidate for Parliament, he described the election campaign so far as ‘boring’. Many would disagree: from the Biblical weather of the Prime Minister’s announcement, through national service and Keir Starmer’s renewed enthusiasm for nuclear weapons, to a purge of left-wing candidates in the Labour Party, there has been plenty to hold the public’s interest. It has, however, been depressing and dispiriting.
The Opposition is bound to dwell on the negative. It is a fundamental element of the challenger’s playbook that the nation is in a terrible state and the government should be held to blame. The answer, in Starmer’s mind, is that it’s time for a change.
The whole piece is well worth reading as a reminder that any political outlook has to be 'for' something rather than merely against what we have now. This is Starmer's weakness, he is not clearly 'for' anything other than spending more of your money. Even if he is 'for' something else, he won't be tomorrow. The Tories are much the same.
Political optimism probably is necessary, but it isn't what is guiding Starmer towards No. 10. The major parties are not 'for' anything attainable at all, but between them they will end up with most of the Parliamentary seats if the polls have any value at all.
Even a challenger such as Reform has to take a generally negative stance. Reform must be against the unattainable because the drive towards the unattainable is where the problems are.
Echoing the dissatisfaction of the electorate is the political equivalent of a comedian’s cheap laugh: it provokes an instant response and makes people agree with you. But it is not nearly enough. When the country has seemed to be in decline before, it has been the party offering solutions as well as an assessment of the problems which is ultimately victorious: Harold Wilson’s ‘white heat’ of technology in 1964, Margaret Thatcher’s ‘free society’ in 1979.
Margaret Thatcher’s vision of a ‘free society’ was a plausible ideal in 1979, but we have swapped a plausible ideal for a drive towards the unattainable. It isn't easy to build optimism on that.
7 comments:
Perhaps the elections ow Wilson and Thatcher were about direction and vision. Whereas the current managerial mindset (Sunak and Starmer) is about 'steady as she goes'. Claims of 'change' are a stretch:
Starmer:
- Deliver economic stability
- Cut NHS waiting lists
- Crack down on anti-social behaviour
- Recruit 6,500 new teachers
- Launch a new border security command
- Set up publicly-owned Great British Energy
Sunak (January 2023):
- Halve inflation
- Grow the economy
- Reduce debt
- Cut NHS waiting lists
- Stopping small boats
These are 'managerial' rather than 'visionary'. The General Election becomes a question of which Boss you would prefer, not which Leader you would follow.
DJ - yes it is managerial and middle managerial at that. It's quite close to an admission that Sunak, Starmer and co. aren't on the board and don't even get many opportunities to talk to senior executives although they do take note of directives from above.
Maybe behind the managerial caution of both parties there is a positive vision, albeit hard to discern because it is not clearly articulated. The previous visions of Thatcher and Wilson were about wealth, production, and consumption; they appealed to businessmen who wanted to make money, and consumers who wanted to get rich. Starmer and Sunak seem to want to appeal to hurt people - those who want to feel safe from threats. It's essentially a lawyer's vision. By outlawing stuff like "hate speech", inequalities, environmental damage, and prejudice, the vision is to create a society where nobody can make you feel any worse than you do now.
That's why the parties make so many flip-flops. They are responding in a knee-jerk way to whichever victim groups have just done their shroud-waving. Governments are fearful of appearing uncaring.
I might be wrong, but there is honestly no other way I can explain a KC party leader being unable to define what a woman is.
Could be a description of our era … drive for the unattainable.
Sam - yes they do seem to aim at keeping people safe from threats while at the same time making sure people have plenty of imaginary threats to feel safe from. It's as if that's what governments always do but have run out of genuine threats.
It may explain a KC party leader being unable to define what a woman is in that he is only responding to the few who feel threatened or ought to feel threatened. Yet others could feel threatened by his craven crawling after votes. Still odd I think.
James - as if we haven't grown out of wanting fantasies to be real.
I am currently reading Gyles Brandreth's Diaries. I have just read about his time as an MP and cant help feeling that there is a replay of the 1997 Major Governments troubles going on . The similarities are revealing. Expect to see a lot of familiar faces disappear.
John - it isn't easy to see how they get themselves into such a mess unless it's down to the scheming, bombastic character of too many MPs.
Post a Comment