a clear governing philosophy for Labour
Open Editor’s Digest for free
FT editor Rula Khalaf picks her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
The UK government’s plea to regulators to come up with ideas for growth is easily dismissed. It’s not a bad idea to notify regulators that their mandate may change, but only as long as you also consult with those who know what it’s like to be regulated. Here, as often with this government, the signals are confusing.
Managing is difficult. There is a certain unease among veterans of previous administrations when Labor recognized this after six months in office. When Sir Keir Starmer complained about what he called a “lukewarm recession”, he expressed the frustration felt by every new prime minister made worse by the lack of a clear management philosophy.
The new administration is full of energetic ministers who are working hard. But there is little reading. The Cabinet feels more like a group of individuals with wildly different views of the world than a team with anything approaching a coherent analysis of what ails Britain and what to do about it.
Hearing the chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster promise to “make the state more like a start-up”, the science and technology minister waxing lyrical about artificial intelligence, or the health minister about patient choice can leave one with a very different impression of education by a secretary who is trying to turn back the clock, breaking with two decades of cross-party politics that have improved. the schools. And by a deputy prime minister whose massive workers’ rights package is further eroding business confidence even as the Treasury tries to restore it.
All ruling parties are a coalition of interests. But the amount of dissonance in this case makes it hard to be sure where this is government will lead to any question.Which in turn makes it difficult to build trust.
Argument for Angela Rayner employment bill of rights is that low productivity in the UK is partly explained by insecure work. In that light some measures seem reasonable; scrapping “fire and hire” practices that impose new terms and conditions on workers, helping the self-employed get paid on time and easing some aspects of zero-hours contracts. But the bill contains a number of other rules, including sick pay from day one, parental leave and unfair about layoffs, stronger union powers, and other rules that are directly at odds with the growth mission that Starmer insists is central.
Insecure work can indeed be harmful to productivity. But no work at all. The Independent Regulatory Policy Commission criticized the government’s impact assessment as “not fit for purpose” and warned that the measures would hurt low-wage workers.Business polls show the bill would accelerate moves to invest in technology, not people. The complexity and scale of the new rights mean, of course, that an entirely new regulatory body will be created to oversee them.
No 10 and the Treasury are scarred by the business response to the rise in national insurance and are deeply concerned by the recent economic news.
Given concerns about what the package might do to workers’ prospects, only two groups clearly benefit: lawyers and unions.Something like that applies schools bill From the Department for Education, where Secretary of State Bridget Phillipson seems to be freelancing with no connection to what the rest of the government is doing.
Phillipson wants to dismantle reforms started by Labour’s Andrew Adonis, who grew up in care and later turbo-charged by Conservative Michael Gove, the adopted son of a Scottish fish farmer : They were based on two principles: to create academy schools with more freedoms, such as paying good teachers more and demand accountability through league tables.Academies became a tool to turn around failing schools.
Phillipson wants to remove most of this without a compelling alternative philosophy of raising standards. His answer to what to do about schools classified as “inadequate” seems to be to replace the word with something broader that won’t give parents the same clarity. :
None of this makes sense. There are improvements that could be made, such as the multi-academy trusts study. But why change a system that has helped so many of the poorest children?
When it comes to investment, Labor has brought much-needed political stability. But investors also need an educated and flexible labor market. Ignoring that would be unwise, to say the least.
Unlike Boris Johnson, Starmer is neither lazy nor chaotic. But like Johnson, he finds that ideas, some of them really bad, fill any semblance of a vacuum at the centre. In meetings, he is known for asking for solutions, not problems. But in Whitehall, the most intractable issues move up through the system. until they land on the Prime Minister’s desk. Without a clearer indication of what he wants, it will be difficult to drive.
English