What do we have a right to expect from our ruling classes – and is it written in manifestos?
It seems that on a regular basis we are required to show enthusiasm for yet another Prime Minister, whereas what is clear is that we need consistent and bold leadership, which has been sadly lacking.
What do we as the electorate have to accept as points on a manifesto that any one elector may only have partially agreed with? And what should we be able to expect by default any government to do as part of its responsibility to govern.
The easy one first – clearly we should reasonably expect that the government of the day should safeguard the nation’s sovereignty: a) by its positioning politically on the world stage and b) physically, as required, through the strength of the United Kingdom’s armed forces.
While not understanding what pays the bills, it has signally failed to secure national borders. Instinctively it ideologically baulks at military spending, but does not see the increased risk from a belligerent Russia, an emboldened China and the physical challenge of mitigating warfare that can be accomplished on a budget and at long range, which increases the number and capability of potential aggressors which can wage war on a budget.
This is compounded by a MAGA Presidential administration which is presiding over increased distrust for the US as an ally and as a supplier of key weapon systems. So, no help there for our Socialist government to mitigate their responsibility for leaving the nation vulnerable. Most of the electorate would agree that this is a sacred central tenet of our governance and a non-negotiable: safeguard the country’s sovereignty.
The more nuanced issue is: if Andy Burnham is ‘crowned’ PM unopposed, to what degree is he obliged to carry out the manifesto which had Labour elected at the last General Election?
Clear divisions exist within the governing party, which has brought about Keir Starmer’s downfall; these are unlikely to resolve themselves unless the next Labour leader shows some proper leadership and makes it stick with the Parliamentary Labour Party.
Studying Labour as a party in opposition coming to power, it is clear that it is still fundamentally in the mindset of protest. This denies its responsibility for simply not understanding the language it uses and the phenomenon of cause/effect, which has led to protestations of delivering growth while boasting of record increases in pay, but also presiding inevitably and predictably over increased national debt, wholesale business closures, reduced employment opportunities and the flight of capital. While the government fails to understand what drives the economy, it is fundamentally doomed to fail as there is nobody to pay for its putative largesse to its supporters.
What about all those ‘nice-to-have’ policies that were mainly implied in the manifesto? The Ed Miliband sponsored Net Zero ideology that has the country buying from Norway from the same oil and gas fields which they have banned UK companies from drilling, then shipping or piping it expensively and at a financial premium across the North Sea.
This goes against the spirit of environmentalism and it is abundantly clear that it only notionally tips its hat to the letter of that ideology – so ‘green’, in reality, it is not. And demonstrably not in the national interest. But absolutely from the Marxist playbook. And the Green party promises even more extremes (albeit surprisingly few around environmentalism) if it is more influential in the corridors of power – God help us.
It is genuine dilemma, though, for a party competing in a general election to then turn a theoretical shopping list from outline promise to detailed and implemented policy, especially given changing circumstances and macro-geopolitics. But this is an excuse unattractively over-used by the current administration and Andy Burnham needs to be seen to be taking more responsibility for national outcomes, regardless of the cause. No government has ever worked in a geopolitical vacuum and it is an intrinsic part of the role to mitigate international challenges.
In very simple terms, the Labour manifesto very vaguely committed to most of us for our votes, while in reality dealing more left-wing rewards to their core support: unions and pseudo-green idealogues, while increasing their potential support group by splurging on welfare and pushing to give children the vote. Every time a minister addresses the public at an interview the obfuscation and ignorance is manifest. They do not understand what changes the country needs and have no desire or interest to learn – they simply want to deliver against their ideology and for their small group of supporters and allies, come what may and regardless of the cost to the nation.
The public know when a governing party is doing so in the national interest and not in their own – and this is not it, hence the discontent evident around the country. There is currently no principle backing policy and there is no informed and intuitive understanding from ministers of what is required (which would have to be driven by a genuine interest to inform), with the courage that is able to make the case regardless of the short-term political consequences. The public would, and do, back that with Kemi Badenoch. The key is: who will actually promise and then deliver, not just posture based on day-by-day focus group feedback.
Is Andy Burnham really that kind of leader?
A political promise contained in a manifesto is the same as any given from one citizen to another: it is the intent that is most important and the principle backing it. A written constitution and a legally compliant manifesto – God help us from more regulation, bureaucracy and legal obstacles – is no substitute for the genuine drive to accomplish the best possible changes and effects in the national interest. There are no good outcomes without that.