by Atul Hatwal
Disappointment. That’s the tenor of much commentary about the Labour government’s first few months. Criticism for a lack of radicalism is to be expected from the left but there’s been a chorus from centrist voices. For example, here’s Duncan Robinson from the Economist
Starmer’s Labour as the apogee of “not a good look” thought
www.economist.com/britain/2025…
— Duncan Robinson (@duncanrobinson.bsky.social) 2 January 2025 at 09:32
Setting aside gripes from the Socialist Campaign Group that the top 100 companies on the FTSE have not yet been nationalised, there are two elements to the mainstream critique: more could and should have been done on policy, such as tax or planning reform and that there’s a missing vision thing. Underpinning both, on occasion, is a wistful view of how much better things were in 1997 after a few months of Labour government.
Both aspects of criticism have a kernel of truth but are currently being wildly exaggerated while the nostalgia for 1997 is a function of rose-tinted spectacles revealing a grand design that was distinctly absent at the time.
On policy, more can always be done but it is equally important to get it right. The Lansley NHS reforms of the Cameron-Clegg coalition are testament to the dangers of ‘go big or go home’ without having a clear plan. They were an ill thought-out mess which few in the NHS wanted and even fewer defend today.
It was patently obvious that precious little policy had been developed by Labour in opposition and areas like planning and tax are much easier to get wrong than right. If there has been no progress in these areas in the next year then there maybe a better case for complaint. In the interim, since attaining office, there have been plenty of policies that will have long term impact. From employment rights to housing targets to new rules on onshore wind farms, there have been substantive announcements. Combined with action to stop madness such as the Rwanda policy, almost £1bn spent for zero impact, and new funding of the public services in the budget, this is surely a reasonable start.
On the vision thing, more often than not, it is a vibe, retrofitted to government policy based on what has worked. In 1997, there were big immediate achievements like the Minimum Wage, Scottish devolution and independence for the Bank of England but it would be straining credulity to say there was a distinct ideological thread to these moves other than ‘modernisation’ or just ‘making stuff work better’.
Looking back to the 1997 Labour government as it was, not how it is remembered, is instructive. In the first Blair term, the government issued annual reports to demonstrate progress against manifesto commitments and looking at the 1998 report, it is clear that today’s Starmer critics would have been similarly disappointed.
On the economy, the 1997 manifesto committed to ‘Delivering economic prosperity for the many, not the few’. The 1998 report had this to say:
“We inherited an economy with fundamental weaknesses. The familiar cycle of boom and bust was beginning to reappear. Over the last year we have embarked on a radical programme of reform to address these fundamental priorities and put Britain on course for long-term economic stability.”
Hmm. Hardly replete with substantive content or vision. Notably no specifics on improving employment levels or more secure public finances, which were included in later reports.
How about Education? In the 1997 manifesto it was cited as ‘the government’s number one priority’. Here is the 1998 report
“We have moved beyond the sterile debates about school structures. What matters is what works. We will let excellence flourish with a light touch from the centre. The government promised that it would spend more on education. We will increase education spending by an average of 5.1 percent in real terms over the next three years which totals £19 billion.”
It’s a good solid update but hardly of the type that would set pulses racing, the focus is on cash inputs rather than educational outputs, probably because there were precious few to report after just a year of government.
Keir Starmer’s administration hasn’t been without issues but much of the criticism belies a sense of how long it takes for government to enact change and is symptomatic of a political class that has become too used to never-ending drama. This affliction of political ADHD is driven by a news cycle which has been transformed since the days of the 1997 Labour government. It has morphed into an opinion cycle where news happens, then within 20 minutes the first wave of opinion is dominating online discussion followed by waves of reaction comment.
If there was a core failing for the Starner government, it is in communications. Whether they like it or not, the required volume of content to be supplied by the government to occupy the media has expanded exponentially. Supply has to cater for social as well as traditional media and failure to feed the beast results in criticism on lack of direction and dynamism as well as unexpected ephemera becoming a focus for the conversation.
Higher volume, higher velocity and better coordinated communications would make a fundamental difference to discussion of the Starmer government, buying time needed for the reams of actual policy which has been announced, to make a difference. This was ultimately the story of the first Labour term in 1997, a media operation that generated enough content to keep busy pens scribbling and presented an image of activity and dynamism that created the space for the economy to turn, policy to be implemented and, ultimately, things to get better.
Atul Hatwal is editor of Labour Uncut
Tags: 1997, Atul Hatwal, communications, Keir Starmer, Labour government, policy
