The Forgotten Importance Of Time In Politics
You could be forgiven for thinking we were approaching the end of this Labour government’s term in power, rather than being merely a tenth of the way through. Labour’s first six months in charge have seen Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves relentlessly attacked by sections of the media and prominent figures such as the dreaded Elon Musk along with a petition calling for an immediate general election accumulating over 3 million signatories. After 14 years of Conservative rule, Labour have barely been in the block for five minutes, yet are finding their every move denounced mercilessly.
This furore only increased after Rachel Reeves unveiled her October budget, with policies pertaining to inheritance tax for farmers and National Insurance hikes for employers drawing particular ire. Of course, government should always be scrutinised and, in politics, it is impossible to keep everyone happy. Whereas the previous government provoked outrage amongst publications such as The Guardian and Daily Mirror, their centre-left replacements invoke the fury of The Telegraph and the Daily Mail.
But some perspective must be applied. When the party in power changes, a change in ideology follows and therefore government strategy can drastically alter. Policies may become diametrically opposed to their previous iteration, upsetting new groups of people and provoking early uncertainty. And, in a society still reeling from the effects of Brexit, a pandemic and a cost-of-living crisis, any negative effects may be exacerbated.
As with all changes, it takes time to see the effects. Deciding to go for a run in the morning won’t make you noticeably fitter after a few days, yet if you stick to it for months, or even a year, you will start to see an improvement. Policies too follow this logic. Making large economic and social policy changes generally won’t change the country nor people’s lives overnight (of course, there are some exceptions, Liz Truss we’re looking at you). However, over the coming months and years, the effects of these changes will begin to become clear.
This Labour government will be judged for its decisions — that’s what a general election is for in a democratic society. If, in four-and-a-half years’ time, the state of the country hasn’t markedly improved, Starmer and his government will face a reckoning at the polls and most likely have to give up the keys to 10 Downing Street. That is the beauty of our parliamentary system. We, the public, ultimately decide who is tasked with running the country and then our chosen governors are given a period of time to implement the people’s will. If they succeed, they are afforded more time. If they fail, they are cast out and someone else is given a go. Calling for sackings and reruns of elections so soon into a parliamentary term undermines this system and paves the way for a turbulent state in which nothing gets done due to a constantly unstable government. This was demonstrated by the Conservatives post-Brexit when the UK had as many prime ministers in just over three years as we had in the 26 years prior to David Cameron’s resignation. It is no surprise the post-Brexit period has seemed so volatile in the UK — how can improvements to society be made when leaders are in constant flux and ministers are repeatedly reshuffled?
It is unlikely, in the days of Elon Musk’s X and an international order welcoming back Donald Trump for four more years, that the pressure on Labour will relent any time soon. So Starmer must resist the urge to cave into media campaigns against his chosen senior ministers and trust his initial instincts that he has filled senior government positions with talented people whilst keeping in mind that turning the UK around will take time. Ultimately, this government’s early wobbles will be forgotten if the UK’s prospects look much brighter in several years' time. We must remember all change, whether at an individual, group or state level, requires patience. And, in times of both increasing authoritarianism and increasing support for authoritarianism, we must remember the future of democracy rests on the success of those countries who espouse and defend it.
The nature of authoritarianism leads to long periods of government stability in an oppressive form. Democracy will always involve less. Naturally, the possibility of a change in government every few years means policies will be scrapped and some progress will be lost. Is this not a small price to pay for a free society and the chance to have a say in who governs? Yet, if when the people have their say, the result is not respected, then the democratic system risks falling apart. Time must be afforded to any new government. Whether this Labour government will be a success is unknown, but let’s judge it a couple of years down the line, rather than six months in.
Comments