I don’t usually follow parliamentary politics. I agree with Lenin; bourgeois governments are just fronts for capitalists. It really isn’t going to make much difference who gets elected. However; there are some interesting points in the current situation. The current Labour government has just taken a huge drubbing in local elections, not very significant in themselves, but something of a bellweather for how the next general election may turn out. It looks like Reform, the “anti-immigration and ‘patriotic’ party” will win a significant number of seats. The result is striking considering that just two years ago Labour won a resounding election victory.
So, Starmer is trying to hang onto his position. Apparently, he is going to launch one more reset. He has also brought in two rather unconvincing ‘elder statesmen’ from the Labour party to act as advisors. And tomorrow he is going to announce an exciting new policy programme, to revitalise support. This is it:
The legislative programme is expected to include a proposed EU bill that would create a framework for a swift transfer of laws made in Brussels to the UK statute book. Reforms to special educational needs provision, an overhaul of the regulation of the water industry, plans to introduce a voluntary digital ID system and the legislation required to formally abolish NHS England are among the other measures to be introduced. [1]
Is there anything which leaps out at you about this programme? Yes, that is right, it is not going to make a blind bit of difference to anyone. This is why Starmer is unpopular. He, and his ‘team’ are masters at doing nothing – save a few performative gestures – usually just enough to alienate one constituency without being strong enough to appeal to another.
One by one:
The ‘transfer of EU laws’. No doubt, this is seen as a legislative step to prepare for closer union with the EU and as sending a positive signal to European capitals. But as a domestic policy it is a disaster. On the one hand, Reform can paint it as ‘selling out Brexit’. On the other, it delivers nothing positive for pro-Europeans to believe in. (Meanwhile there are ongoing discussions with Brussels about a programme to allow limited free movement of Labour for under 30s. That might attract a few votes from under 30s, though it seems like a limited programme, not the full-scale recommittment that Pro-EU people are looking for. And, in another characteristic hallmark of this government – where they do have a positive policy, albeit a small one, they fail to mention it).
Reforms to special needs provisions. Well, there was a chance to do something about the colossal and absurd amount of money being spent on special needs. There are certain drivers here; in particular, exploitation of the system from below: parents jumping on various bandwagons, claiming special treatment on the basis of ‘conditions’ which a few years ago would not have been considered ‘special’ at all, (an astonishing 5% of pupils now have a certificate guranteeing them expensive special support), [1] and exploitation from above — private (often US equity-backed) providers effectively stealing money from local authorities to provide homes and special schools at extortionate prices. Just the taxi budget to ferry these children, some of whom do not not need taxis at all – or their parents could take them, is over £2 billion a year [1]. In a characteristic piece of madness some of this money is paid to parents to take their own children to school! [2] Like any other free money system it is subject to rampant milking. Any government with balls would simply stop this. The special needs budget is there to support children with genuine learning difficulties, autism (the real kind, not the new shyness kind), and physical disabilities. Not parents with children with minor attention problems, and not US private equity. The current reforms while arguably positive – supporting mainstream schools to support more ‘special needs’ children so they don’t need to go to expensive special schools will only nibble at the edges of the problem. They will fail because they don’t tackle the problems head-on. There is to be some reduction in the most costly form of entitlement certificates but these are immediately replaced with a need to fund all kinds of special provisions in schools. I haven’t heard anything about getting private profiteering out the sector. No balls. So no fix.
(Another) overhaul of regulation of the water industry. In other words, the scandal of private equity using the UK’s privatised water industry as a divided tap (based on debt) while pumping sewage into rivers will continue. [4] And a few new high-paying jobs for regulators will be created.
Plans to introduce a voluntary digital ID system. Another failure to have any balls. Initialy this was to be compulsory scheme but in the face of opposition became voluntary, A national ID system which is voluntary is not fit for purpose. It is a waste of time and money. One reason for this scheme is the behind the scenes connections between government and the (mostly US) corporate IT sector. [5] Everyone can see this. Once again; people who think that ID cards are a good idea will be disappointed by this. And people who object to them will still be unhappy they are being brought in at all. I am not a political adviser, and couldn’t care less about the fortunes of the Labour party, but even I can see that this is simply bad strategy. And – they have people on massive salaries advising them. Odd. The country is up to its eyes in debt – the national debt is over 90% of GDP – and they are still wasting money on pointless schemes to create opportunities for big tech. (In passing, this government, and possibly the last one regularily gives subsidies worth hundreds of millions of pounds to private sector companies – a strange sight in a world when we are constantly lectured about the efficiencies of the private sector. This information is basically covered up – almost impossible to find clear information about it in the media or on Google (Alphabet). I will write more about this soon).
Legislation required to formally abolish NHS England. More regulatory tinkering that won’t make a blind bit of difference to most people’s lives.
Starmer doesn’t mention the policy on immigration but I will. It is based on the same pointless, performative principles, as everything else. There are two new policies: successful asylum seekers will only be granted the right to stay for a set number of years, after which their case will be reviewed, and they will be returned if their home country is now deemed safe. And, instead of being able to apply for permanent residency after 5 years people on Work Visas will now have to wait 10. Both are cruel and performative. Nor will they actually do much to reduce immigration. Once again; they will alienate “pro-refugee” and pro-immigration voters who will probably drift to the Greens. But, they will do little to reduce the actual numbers, and so will not win over Reform voters. What is wrong with these people? From a purely party political point of view can’t they see what the problem is? And – can’t their expensive special advisors?
The reason this it worth commenting on is it is a sign of just how out of touch the political class is. They can’t see that their regulatory tinkering and performative policies are going to convince no one. This is why Reform is more popular. They have lots of faults, but they do not come across as out of touch. Yet.
Notes
- https://ifs.org.uk/sites/default/files/2024-12/Spending-on-special-educational-needs-in-England.pdf
- https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/councils-spend-more-2bn-special-134500286.html
- https://www.thetimes.com/uk/education/article/parents-are-paid-5000-a-year-to-drive-their-children-to-school-kvqflxlq5
- https://www.unison.org.uk/news/blogs-news/2024/05/opinion-the-water-industry-is-a-national-disgrace/
- https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/may/03/starmer-adviser-varun-chandra-undisclosed-meetings-us-tech-bosses
Notes