by Lynda Goetz
As we enter 2025, it is getting increasingly hard to feel optimistic about my country. The gulf between those in government and the governed seems to yawn ever wider. The divide between the idealogues and those who wish just to be allowed to do the best for themselves and their families seems to increase daily.
Fourteen years of a Tory government did nothing to deal with the issues of a bloated and seemingly barely cooperative Civil Service, a stagnant economy, a population seemingly more and more addicted and entitled to welfare, a health service in crisis, and an immigration problem which, due to an entrenched but unfounded belief in the need for an external workforce to produce growth, continued (deliberately) unabated even after we had left the EU. The hypocrisy and arrogance of Boris Johnson’s cabinet and advisers, which during Covid had imposed an authoritarian regime almost previously unknown in modern peacetime but then proceeded to flout its own rules and regulations, brought down his government. Preceded by David Cameron and then Theresa May, both disastrous in their own ways, he was succeeded for just forty days by Liz Truss and then by Rishi Sunak. By the time Sunak made the mistake of calling an early election last summer, the membership of the Conservative party had fallen quite dramatically and even those who , whilst not members, were natural conservative voters , saw nothing conservative about the party which had been in power fourteen years and had done nothing to change the direction in which Tony Blair had set the country during his years in power.
Almost the entire country had had enough. People were weary of politics and particularly weary of untrustworthy politicians. They wanted change. Many felt it was time to give the ‘other party’, namely Labour, a turn. Some saw the Liberal Democrats as a hope and in the West Country where I live they gained a fair number of seats from the Tories. They ran a well-focused and clever campaign which saw them gain 72 seats with a vote share of 12%. This was an increase of 61 seats. Their skill lay in focusing only on what they saw as winnable seats. The Labour party actually only gained 33% of the national vote but came out with 411 seats and a simple majority of 172 (now slightly reduced owing to intervening events). The Reform party got 14.3% of the vote, but it was too widely spread, and they ended up with just 5 seats. Many people felt too disillusioned to vote. There was only a 60% turnout.
Why, I hear you ask, are you repeating all this? This is history, recent history and we are all only too well aware of it. The reason is the growing awareness that even those who voted for Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour party had no real idea what they were voting for. They were desperate for change. “Change” was the buzzword Starmer hooked onto. The Change proposed seems to be either more of the same or moves to pander to the Civil Service and the trades unions whilst tying the hands of the private sector behind their backs and telling them to increase productivity and growth.
It is increasingly apparent that this is a Socialist party driven by ideology and dogma and with little idea at all of how to “promote growth”, even though it has been one of Chancellor Reeves most oft-repeated mantras. For a Chancellor to be asking regulators for their ideas and suggestions as to how this can be achieved, after a Budget which, unsurprisingly, even to the economically illiterate, has caused the exact opposite, is tragic irony. A party which has had fourteen years in opposition to prepare for government seems to be devoid of ideas apart from fixations on ‘levelling down’ and ‘net zero’. Destroying private education is not going to improve the state sector. Destroying academies by removing their freedoms (to decide their own remuneration packages and their curriculums etc) is likewise going to cause more damage than benefit. Tearing up the Rwanda agreement with no other deterrent in place has not stopped the flow of illegal migrants across the Channel. Legal immigration remains an issue, in spite of serious public unease, not to say unrest. In December, Starmer refused to rule out bringing in a blasphemy law when asked by Tahir Ali, MP for Birmingham Hall Green and Mosely, to "commit to introducing measures to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions". Later, Seema Malhotra, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Equalities, did give a simple “yes” when asked if she would rule out creating new blasphemy laws “which have no place in modern British society” although this has not been confirmed by higher authorities.
Ed Miliband’s zealous pursuit of the ‘net zero’ targets first passed into legislation by the May government may appeal to the purists, but experts are warning that this is adding hundreds of pounds a year to the bills of consumers already hard pushed by the cost of living increases and inflation of the last few years. Even if we succeed in these aims, which will come at such a cost to the UK population, we are responsible for a mere 1% of global emissions. We live in a country where a regular supply of sunshine (or even wind) are not givens. The infrastructure is not in place. A much slower and more pragmatic approach to the transition would not leave us at risk of frequent power cuts, nor would it pose the threat to the economy that this full-throated charge is already presenting.
Pensioners have had the annual winter fuel allowance removed. This may perhaps have had some merit had it been thought through. Like so much else, it was not. Clearly there were plenty of pensioners for whom a £200 bonus before Christmas was a nice addition to the Christmas spending pot. For many, many others it was a vital help in the face of rising costs. The amount saved by the Treasury was expected to be £1.4 billion. In the event, it may actually end up costing the Treasury more, as more claim Pension Credit and are then able to claim other so-called ‘passported benefits’. It has seriously further eroded trust after all the pre-election promises.
The other attacks on pensioners by this government are also unwelcome. They appear to be seen as part of Labour’s enemies. The definition of ‘working people’ has never been clearly or satisfactorily explained by Starmer or his ministers, but it would appear that pensioners come under the definition of ‘non-workers’, which of course they are at this point in their lives. That denies their previous earlier status as contributors to the economy. The various moves on pensions, inheritance tax, and taxes on small business and farmers all point to a disregard for those who have worked, are self-employed or are self-sufficient by dint of their own hard work. This government appears to be preparing for a world in which everyone either works for or is beholden to the State.
As for free speech, it almost seems to have become a dirty phrase. We have police forces whose record on solving crime seems pathetic and who seem to spend far too much of their time focusing on supposed ‘keyboard warriors’ (e.g a grandmother in her 70s still in prison for an online comment posted in anger during the Southport riots last summer) and non-crime hate incidents of the sort highlighted by the journalist Allison Pearson last autumn. We appear to have a two-tier system of justice as pointed out by an American who does not need to fear our increasingly authoritarian government. Not only does that government seem to think it is fine if they accept gifts from their backers but seek to ensure that other parties are legislated against if they were to accept large donations from a person of whom they disapprove, but to crown their hypocrisy they have just succeeded in refusing a call for an inquiry into what are euphemistically called “grooming gangs”.
These largely Pakistani rape gangs, for that is what they are, have damaged and abused thousands of largely vulnerable white girls. It is even claimed that some have died, including one girl, and her family, whose house was set on fire by her abuser. A number of the perpetrators who were supposed to have been deported are still here. Those in positions of authority who chose to turn a blind eye and cover up behaviour going on under their noses, because they were worried about being considered racist, have never faced justice. Labour, who have been setting up inquiries and quangos at a rate of knots since they took over in the summer, could so easily have responded to public anger and initiated a national inquiry. Instead, tone deaf, or with something to cover up, they chose to ignore the demands (as indeed had the Tories, although they could perhaps claim that the extent of the abuse in many different locations was not fully apparent when they were in power). In yet another stunningly hypocritical move, Starmer and his deputy Angela Rayner, having imposed a three-line whip against the Opposition’s calls for an enquiry (using a technicality, which would also have had the effect of bringing down the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill on its second reading), both contrived to abstain from voting at all themselves. The Lib Dems also all abstained.
Perhaps it is of more significance than generally realised that Reeves has dashed off to China in the hopes of promoting trade and creating growth. Sunak had increasingly turned away from China having seen the reality of a government which his predecessor as PM and subsequently his Foreign Minister, Lord Cameron, had seen fit to engage with and encourage. Are closer ties with this authoritarian regime really what this country needs?
Disillusion with this government voted in only last summer, is high. Starmer may have a large majority in Parliament. He does not have that support in the country. His ability to read the electorate seems close to net zero, but the question is, does he care? Unless he and his Chancellor manage to do something to completely lose the support of his MPs, the damage they have already wreaked will seem small in comparison to that which they will succeed in creating in the next four and a half years. Short of civil war, which in spite of Elon Musk’s predictions last summer, we are nowhere near at this point, it is hard to see how we can avoid that damage. Should the economy get better (although that does seem unlikely as things stand), they might even recover their fortunes to the point of getting a second term in 2029. All we can hope for now is that the freedoms we have come to take for granted are not removed before that point.
Welcome to 2025! As for the rest of the world’s fortunes for the forthcoming year, I daren’t even go there. No doubt they will be fought out on X whilst the rest of us keep our heads down and hope - or pray, and pay.
Kommentarer