
There will be no second chance for Labour
Britain remains a relatively prosperous and secure nation. But it is becoming palpably less governable by the day. This is not confined to one party or leader. The lifespan of prime ministers and their cabinets are getting shorter. Parliament is sovereign once again, but it does not feel that way. Successive governments have failed to grip the centre and act decisively to overcome Britain's malaise. This is the task that falls to Labour.
These are not easy times in which to govern. The Government has little room for manoeuvre. The bond markets are tetchy, gilt yields are higher than they have been for decades, pushing up the cost of borrowing. The failure of the leadership to shave £5 billion off welfare spending only increases the nervousness. Scleroticism has taken hold in seemingly every institution. How have we got here? And how can Labour get us out of it?
From the 1990s through to 2016, the political class on both Left and Right was characterised above all by complacency. These were the fat years. Growth was good, largely because of a booming services economy centred on London and the south east in general and the City of London in particular. This growth enabled New Labour's economics of redistribution that supported the country's heartlands. After years of hardship, Blair's model seemed to finally bring the warring factions of the country back together again.
The 2008 crash should have shaken the political class out of its complacency, exposing the precarity of our heavily financialised economy and the malaise that lurked beneath the surface of our now fragile economic model. While services had grown, our productive capacity had been denuded. Strategic industries had been closed down, outsourced or sold off to foreign investors. Regions once massaged by public sector employment opportunities and welfare found these tools were no longer powerful enough to smooth the cracks left by deindustrialisation.
The recession marked the juncture at which Britain began to decline relative to the US and most other European nations, yet it prompted little critical reflection. Austerity was the coalition government's answer – and it was an expensive one. Huge structural weaknesses in our economy were reduced to a matter of simple accounting. Investment dried up and infrastructure could not keep pace with maddeningly high levels of immigration. Growth, productivity and real wages flatlined. Complacency was still the order of the day for a political class who had grown decadent and far-removed from the real conditions of the country.
Whatever else it may have done, the vote to leave the European Union punctured this complacency. Blue Labour had been warning since 2009 that all was not well in the body politic, that lurking beneath the glitzy New Labour veneer social disaffection was growing. Blue represented melancholia as much as conservatism. Now all was out in the open: the disconnect between the political class and the country it sought to govern; the towns that had been left behind, their economic purpose in a global economy obscure; and the dysfunction of government, parliament and our public institutions.
The Conservatives proved incapable of exiting this quagmire. The 2019 government began with an 80-seat majority and ended in ignominy and an announcement of a new fund for chess players. Lacking the will or confidence to take on Treasury orthodoxy, immigration trebled and levelling up was abandoned. The civil service was left unreformed. Growth continued to stagnate as judicial overreach and regulatory constraints made building impossible. A few brief spasms aside, inertia replaced complacency as the defining feature of our political class.
As little as a year ago, you could still find echoes of complacency in the political and media class when they spoke of Labour's election win as a victory for the 'grown-ups'. But fixing a broken political system, a dysfunctional state and a stagnant economy requires more than a clean suit and tie. It has taken Labour one year to discover what took the Conservatives 14 years: that Britain, its economy and its institutions, are barely functioning.
Too many in Labour defined themselves solely in opposition to the Conservatives and thought a new Government need only focus on 'delivery', with a few technical fixes here and there. Others wanted to reduce the task of governance to a form of altruism for those in need. Their vibes-based politics has no resonance in the country, no acknowledgment of the hard reality of trade-offs in a low growth economy, and no solutions for Britain's malaise. If there is a divide in Labour it is not between Left and Right, New Labour or Blue Labour, but between those who understand the severity of the country's situation and those who do not.
The future success of this Government depends on this understanding. It must be an insurgent on behalf of the people, willing to grip the centre and take on its own party and the scleroticism of our institutions as it rebuilds a shattered country, shifting resources to the productive economy, to build, make and grow, driving social and economic development, radically reducing immigration and speaking for the whole country as one people united in a shared national identity and purpose.
This is the choice facing Labour, the fork in the road in this inauspicious moment – a retreat into the comfort zone of liberal progressivism confined to the prosperous areas of the country, doing things for a client electorate, promising the impossible, or a striving for a radical rebuilding of the national economy, renewing our sovereign democracy and building our national revival on a broad, cross-class coalition. This way lies a second term and a new political settlement. The first year has not gone well, but there will be no second chance for Labour.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Scotsman
11 minutes ago
- Scotsman
UK Government reset of devolved relations has 'failed', as SNP insiders accuse Labour of 'bad, old habits'
Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... The promised reset between the UK and Scottish governments has failed, SNP officials have claimed, as Labour ministers were accused of consistently 'undermining devolved relations'. A senior Scottish Government source has hit out at the Labour UK government, saying they had seen no improvement in intergovernmental relations since last summer's general election. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad They said the failures to make changes include 'repeatedly cancelling meetings, not providing documents, not sharing information and presenting things as a fait accompli'. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and First Minister John Swinney. | Scott Heppell/Press Association Other examples include the UK government agreeing a new fisheries deal with the EU without consulting with Scottish ministers in advance, despite fisheries being a devolved matter. It is understood SNP ministers are now seeking assurances this is a 'one-off' after claims there have been further instances of Westminster trying to legislate in devolved areas. The Scotsman was also told Scottish officials were only told about a meeting on a Monday morning with the UK Telecoms Minister Chris Bryant 'late on Friday', meaning they did not have sufficient time to prepare. The meeting was on the creative industries strategy, but the documents were then published online half an hour before the meeting with Mr Bryant. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The source told The Scotsman: 'We were told there would be a reset and we have worked hard to make that a reality, but we have now run out of road because there has been no reset. 'It is comparable to the bad, old habits of the last UK Conservative government, which we had an appalling relationship with. 'It is simply not working.' The source said this was now a 'Cabinet-level issue', claiming the Scottish Government was 'the grown-ups in the room' when it comes to dealing with the UK government. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In response, a UK Government source said: 'Whoever this senior Scottish Government source is, they appear to be contradicting the comments of John Swinney himself, who hailed relations as 'incomparably better' compared to the Tory government. 'The UK government has indeed legislated in devolved areas with the Scottish Government's express consent - on better rights in the private rented sector, ensuring ScotRail is kept in public hands, keeping young people safe online, as well as tougher rules on knife sales. 'Both governments are working together on issues like Grangemouth, Alexander Dennis and the clean energy mission. 'This government has reset the relationship between the UK government and the Scottish Government. That doesn't mean we will agree on everything, but where we do agree we should work together. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'The vast majority of Scots just want to see their two governments work together to get things done, and will take a dim view of people complaining they don't have enough time to prepare for a meeting rather than get on with it.' Mr Swinney said in May the relationship between the UK and Scottish governments was "deteriorating", with his comment coming in the wake of Sir Keir Starmer announcing a fresh trade deal with the EU. The First Minister said at the time: "It does appear that the Scottish fishing industry has once again been negotiated away by the UK government, demonstrating that Scotland is an afterthought for the UK government.'


Daily Mail
18 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Elon Musk faces glaring hurdle as he forms new America Party after Trump feud
Elon Musk could be facing a major challenge as he works to launch his new 'America Party'. The former 'First Buddy' announced the foundation of the new party on his X social media platform on Saturday. However, there currently exists a bureaucratic obstacle to Musk getting the new movement off the ground: the Federal Elections Commission. The FEC states that 'new party organizations must register with the FEC when they raise or spend money over certain thresholds in connection with a federal election.' So far, it appears no such registration has been made by Musk, as The New York Times reported the Tesla CEO's game plan to this point has been 'more conceptual than pragmatic.' Even if he had, however, there may be no potential approval coming from the FEC in the near future by design. The agency is meant to be run by six commissioners, appointed by the sitting president. Right now, there are three empty seats on the FEC, not enough to form what's known as a quorum necessary for governing. Three commissioners have stepped down since the president began his second term in January, leaving it essentially defunct until Trump makes those appointments. Trump has yet to name any potential nominees and the White House has yet to address Musk's intention to form a new party. has approached the White House for comment. Democrat Ann Ravel, who served on the FEC from 2013 to 2017, believes Trump may already want to leave it in shutdown mode for his own motivations. 'Clearly, there is no doubt that President Trump wants to purposely leave the FEC without a quorum,' she claimed to Open Secrets. The America Party's founding came after Musk created an online poll on July 4 asking his followers whether to establish the new party. The results came back 65.4 percent in favor, leading Musk to make the announcement. 'By a factor of 2 to 1, you want a new political party and you shall have it!' Musk wrote. 'When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy. 'Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom.' Musk had been elevated to a prestigious role within the White House acting as a special advisor to the president and overseeing the Department of Government Efficiency. But in recent months a rift has emerged and the two former friends have been embroiled in embarrassing public spats played out over social media. Many had predicted that Trump and Musk's rosy bromance wouldn't last long and some pointed to betting markets on when they would turn on each other. Betters heavily favored a fallout before July 1, 2025, less than six months after Musk joined Trump's administration as a special advisor. In just a matter of months Musk went from spending $288 million for Trump's election campaign, to slinging insults about him online. The bust up occurred after Musk stepped down from DOGE over Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' which ends tax breaks for electric vehicles, which are Tesla CEO Musk's passion project. Musk also argued that the bill undercut DOGE's cost-cutting efforts by increasing the deficit. The rift deepened after the president rescinded his nomination offer to Musk-ally Jared Isaacman for NASA administrator over donations he made to the Democrats. Since then Trump and Musk have engaged in public mudslinging against each other. Musk accused the president of ingratitude and claimed he would have lost the election without him, while Trump branded him 'crazy '. Since their public break-up, Musk has threatened to start a new, third political party and buttress the reelection campaign of Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, one of the no votes on Trump's big bill. Trump recently outed himself as the person who leaked details about Musk's alleged drug use, according to author Michael Wolff, who penned the eye-popping book Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House. The New York Times reported that during the 2024 presidential campaign, the billionaire used so much ketamine he was having bladder problems and also used Ecstasy, psychedelic mushrooms and what appeared to be Adderall.


Telegraph
25 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Twenty years on from 7/7, we have learned nothing
As our thoughts turn to the terror attacks which rocked London 20 years ago tomorrow, the Russian Federation is – according to the Dutch government – now responsible for thousands of chemical weapon attacks in Ukraine. The war in Ukraine is now heartbreakingly similar to the trench warfare of WW1. The casualty rate is similar and now the Russians are trying to break the stalemate with gas as the Germans did at the second battle of Ypres in April 1915. As then, the lack of respirators initially was decisive: but the delivery of protective equipment to the frontline in WW1 nullified this dreadful weapon, as it should in Ukraine once British masks arrive in the coming weeks. Twenty years ago, at the time of 7/7, I was commanding the UK's Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) defence force and we were on operations in Iraq. We were dealing with a potential Al Qaeda biological weapon attack against British troops in southern Iraq. Though much about that episode is still confidential, the basic detail is in my memoir Chemical Warrior. That situation ultimately turned out to be a false alarm, but it brought conventional operations to a halt for 48 hours as my team and I dealt with the threat. This is when I began to think that if you had no morals or scruples you would use chemical weapons all the time. In his brilliant autobiography Nine Lives, Aimen Dean, a jihadist turned MI6 agent working within Al Qaeda, details how the terror organisation was planning to use and develop chemical and biological weapons. This is undoubtedly still an aspiration of ISIS and other jihadist groups. What has vexed me for some time is the thought that had 7/7 been a CBRN attack, God only knows what the death toll might have been. I saw at close hand the vile Assad regime killing thousands of Syrian civilians with the deadly nerve agent Sarin, but also with much more readily available chlorine. When I was fighting with the Peshmerga against ISIS, in 2015-17, the terrorists frequently fired mortars at us full of mustard agent aka mustard gas. ISIS also tried to obtain highly enriched uranium to make an improvised nuclear device which could have devastated whole towns and villages. The successors of the 7/7 jihadists have tried and, so far, failed to devastate the hated West with some form of CBRN attack. Long may this continue, but we must not drop our guard. It is not just the terrorists who view this type of attack as the gold standard, but also tyrants and rogue states. The dictator of North Korea had his stepbrother assassinated with the nerve agent VX, and my hometown of Salisbury was attacked by Russian hitmen on the orders of Putin himself, with Novichok, the deadliest chemical man has ever produced. There was enough Novichok used in the attack to kill half the population of Salsibury. Nonetheless there are countermeasures for every threat. It is the one that is ignored or put in the too difficult bracket that will cause us serious harm. The routine use of readily available toxic industrial chemicals like chlorine in Syria, and of 'non lethal' CS gas in Ukraine, has drawn very little comment from the international community. Tyrants like Putin may become emboldened to use more toxic and lethal substances or pathogens against us. The awful events of 7/7 showed us long ago that it's a dangerous world, full of people who wish us harm, and it is much more dangerous today. But for too long we have allowed evil to flourish without action or even protest. Worse, we have failed to strengthen our defences: we have used creative accounting to pretend spending was adequate, rather than actually finding more money for the armed services, the intelligence agencies, the special forces and all the others who guard us while we sleep. Going forward we need to remember that stark lesson we should have learned 20 years ago. It won't matter how good (or not) our other public services or our welfare system may be if our defences are inadequate.