The most disappointing election campaign in living memory

Martin Shipton

Who is responsible for what is arguably the least inspiring election campaign in living memory?

Is it the political parties, the UK state or ourselves? There has certainly been a collective reluctance to confront the serious challenges we face.

Five years ago, the last elections were fought around the slogan Get Brexit Done, inspired by Boris Johnson. It was a ridiculous and self-destructive leaflet, but at least it provided a focal point for the campaign. Both major parties were led by polarizing figures – Johnson and Corbyn – and there was a distinct choice to make between different versions of the future.

Can we really say that this time? Labor under Starmer has done everything in its power to marginalize and exclude the left, which traditionally represents the conscience of the party.

Pragmatism is a good thing, but if it is not supported by principles, it becomes an end in itself. The relentless quest for power can be a good thing, but only if it is accompanied by a plan to change things in a meaningful and positive way.

Minor scandals

The enormity of the damage caused by Brexit, by Partygate, by the corruption of Covid contracts and by Liz Truss' catastrophic interlude as Prime Minister has been largely ignored during this election campaign, even though all of these negative factors have happened since we last had the chance to vote. for a British government.

Instead, the news has been dominated by prolonged coverage of what would normally be considered a minor scandal involving low-ranking politicians placing questionable bets for relatively small stakes.

The Conservatives persist in describing themselves as a low-tax party, even though there is empirical evidence that, thanks to them, taxes are higher today than they have been for decades. Meanwhile, Labour’s two buzzwords – change and stability – represent a contradiction in terms.

The UK needs radical change to emerge from a crippling era of austerity, but Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves are not proposing that. Despite their denials, a recently published analysis by the Wales Governance Center at Cardiff University showed that the Welsh Government will have to impose further budget cuts in the coming years if it is to spend more money on health and education.

While there will undoubtedly be plenty of excitement on election night between Conservative MPs and defeated Conservative MPs, anyone who believes that the kind of significant change we need will be delivered is doomed to disappointment.

Torrid

In Wales, we have experienced a particularly torrid time. The leadership of our devolved government has, in effect, been bought with a criminal's money, and the party which, at UK level, presents itself as the antithesis of the sordid Tory has declared that everything is fine.

Meanwhile, two of the 32 seats in the Westminster parliament have been offered to potential politicians parachuted in from London by the Labour Party's National Executive Committee.

Keir Starmer's message to Welsh households contains a further insult. He states: “My six measures to change Wales are fully funded, ready-to-implement actions on the path to long-term change.”

Work :

* Ensure economic stability

* Reduce NHS waiting times

* New border security command launched

* Creation of Great British Energy

* Suppress antisocial behavior

* Recruit new teachers.

Two of these commitments relate to devolved responsibilities that are not the responsibility of the UK Government.

It is unfortunate that waiting times in Wales for NHS treatment are much worse than in England.

The spending plans announced by shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves are, according to economic analysts, far from enough to provide Wales with the funds needed to make a significant difference. The same goes for the promise to recruit more teachers.

Brexit

Rishi Sunak has few cards to play. His predecessor, the penultimate, may have succeeded in delivering Brexit, but even Mr Sunak does not see that as a reason to boast. In fact, he barely talks about it. Starmer is not talking about it because, despite poll results suggesting otherwise, his advisers tell him he could upset Leave voters if he did. Such is the quality of the leadership of these two men.

For Sunak, it is a triumph to have managed to reduce inflation. For those affected by the cost of living crisis, the extra costs, however small, represent an additional burden. It is not enough to make exaggerated calculations.

The closest thing Keir Starmer has to a big idea is creating a state-owned energy company called Great British Energy. But when you look at the details, it's not such a big idea at all. Nils Pratley, the Guardian's financial editor, wrote a compelling review.

Here's an extract: Keir Starmer's claim that the operation that will take control of our energy supply to bring down bills requires several gigawatts of context. Energy is a very large and long-term activity and we are not doing miracles with 8.3 billion, the sum reserved for GB Energy during the next legislature.

Look at what existing players will invest over the same period. National Grid intends to spend $30 billion in the UK over the next five years, SSE is on track to invest $20.5 billion by 2027 and Scottish Powers plans $12 billion in by 2028. GB Energy might be able to use debt to turn its $8.3 billion into a larger sum (it's not yet clear), but it's a stretch to say it will play a role of control in energy supply.

On bills, Labor should also be careful. As National Grid and others increase their spending, it is clear that the network costs element of our energy bills will increase, which is how energy infrastructure is paid for. Eventually, we are confident, there will be a transition point where more electricity from wind, solar and nuclear sources will reduce costs for consumers, but it is unlikely to be reached in the next Parliament. Either way, the outcome will be dictated for some time to come by the price of natural gas.

All this does not mean that GB Energy is useless. The part of the mission that deserves to be applauded is the focus on local projects, where 3.3 billion of the 8.3 billion will be allocated to support small solar and onshore wind projects by providing loans to local authorities, etc. This should not be controversial: there are many examples in Germany and Norway of successful municipal networks and the big players are not interested in the details.

Similarly, there is a valid argument that a state-owned operator can accelerate the development of new technologies, such as floating offshore wind, by reducing the cost of capital in high-risk projects. But, in terms of bills, don't expect quick wins. It took around 20 years of support from the contracts for difference mechanism to largely reduce the costs of conventional offshore wind farms.

GB Energy, in its current form, therefore seems to be an attractive addition. It should be able to fill gaps in the market and co-invest in riskier projects. But €8.3bn or €1.7bn a year is not a game changer when a single high-voltage submarine and underground cable to bring electricity from Aberdeenshire to North Yorkshire can cost €3.4bn.

wet squib

In other words, Labor's big, interesting idea is a damp squib that won't deliver savings in the short term, which is what people are looking for.

Fortunately, due to the failure of Rwanda's absurd project, concern over migrants arriving on small boats did not gain as much prominence as it might have during the campaign. This has not eliminated the kind of racist, dog-whistle politics practiced, to their shame, by both Labor and Conservative politicians.

It will be entertaining on election night to follow the results and see which well-known politicians survived and which were ousted. The overall outcome, however, is beyond doubt, beyond speculation about whether the Tories' defeat will be apocalyptic or simply crushing.

What follows is, surprisingly, just as predictable. Disillusionment with Labor and the rise of the far right.

As Nigel Farage said, the really interesting election is not this one, but the one after that in 2029. Let's hope tomorrow doesn't belong to him.