The Guardian view on Labour’s economic message: blaming the Tory legacy isn’t enough
There is always a stark contrast between the simplicity of a slogan that wins an election and the complexity of the task that greets an incoming government. For Labour, the challenge is especially acute because the headline promise of Sir Keir Starmer’s campaign was a single word: “change”. Aside from new faces in ministerial offices, the reality for most people was always going to feel like more of the same for some time.
Wednesday’s release of official economic data, showing inflation up by 2.2% last month, illustrates the point. The increase is on the lower end of analysts’ expectations, but high prices, especially for essential groceries, will still shape the public mood. The cost of living crisis that was a major factor in bringing down the Tories is now Labour’s problem.
Sir Keir anticipated this hazard. It is why his manifesto eschewed utopian promises and his speeches described the road ahead as long and hard. It is also why the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has made a great show of exposing the £22bn “black hole” in public finances bequeathed to her by Jeremy Hunt.
The goal is to embed in the public consciousness the idea that the painful decisions to come are the Tories’ fault; that the current government deserves credit for undertaking a job of economic repair, or should at least be extended some benefit of the doubt while that process goes on.
It is a rational strategy with solid foundation in truth. Arguably, Labour might have bought itself more capacity to offer public relief faster with a less timid manifesto, but that argument is now academic. Caution won the day and, having bound its own hands in advance, the new administration must maximise what wriggle room is available to deliver improvement within self-imposed political constraints.
Incompetence was the main charge that Labour pinned on the Tories across the board, from public finances to running the NHS and managing migration. Restoring competence is a precondition for things improving, but not a sufficient answer, and the dividend does not come quickly.
In a more deferential age, ministers might expect public patience on the grounds that easy fixes are not available. The reality of modern politics is that a prime minister needs to fight for that patience, winning it with powers of persuasion.
This is not Sir Keir’s strength. He is an administrator, not a natural performer, and seeks to make a virtue of the distinction. He asks to be judged by results, not promises. It is a fine aspiration, but potentially naive when hostile media and well-resourced opposition politicians will be on hand to narrate national hardship as a function of incumbent misrule.
It is too early to judge whether Labour’s policy agenda is capable of engineering national renewal, but not too soon for the prime minister to give the application of his plans a more vivid, colourful sense of purpose. It is right to continue blaming the Tories for the abject state of the public realm, but that is a backwards-facing message.
Candour about the origin of the problem must be coupled with clarity about the destination. Anger with Conservatives will linger, but sceptical voters also need reasons to be optimistic about the future. Time is already ticking by fast if Labour wants to defer public frustration during the arduous process of turning change from a slogan into a reality.