The Labour party’s landslide victory in the general election last Thursday has been hailed as a momentous change in UK politics – a sudden and overwhelming shift away from the dark side. It’s been called ‘The end of Thatcherism’. Having lived through the forty-five year reign of the cruel, intolerant, greedy political ideology instigated by that vile creature, I’m more than willing to embrace the concept. ‘The end of Thatcherism!’ That sounds very sweet to me!

In the wake of the election, there is genuine hope. I feel it too. But will things really change so much? Britain is one of very few countries in Europe that use the ‘First past the post’ system. It’s a poor form of democracy, and it’s generally recognised that it needs to be changed.[1.] And yet the new Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, has publicly stated his commitment to ‘First past the post’. Perhaps that isn’t surprising when Labour won 34% of the votes (9.7 million) which somehow equates to 63% of the seats! That’s actually half a million less votes than they got in 2019, when they lost badly! The system, in this case, has worked in his favour. But which is the most ethical path – to reform the system to make it fairer, or leave it as it is, because it happens to suit you? Not a great start for a party who claim to want to put trust back into politics!

The party with most reason to be dissatisfied with the current system, is ‘Reform’, who got 14% of the votes, but only 5 MPs! (But then, their leader is an objectionable troublemaker who has said that Andrew Tate is ‘an important voice for men’, so perhaps we should be thankful for the system we have!)

We’ve been here before. In 1997 Tony Blair’s ‘New Labour’ swept to power with a big majority, to the tune of ‘Things can only get better’, while people partied in the streets (not me – I had Blair’s measure well before he became Prime Minister). Within a short time the foreign secretary, Robin Cook, had resigned, having realised Blair had no intention of letting him implement the bold new ‘ethical foreign policy’ he had set out in an inspirational press conference. It soon became clear why Blair didn’t want ethics in foreign policy when, against the wishes of the majority of the population, he took us into an illegal war in the Middle East. A war in which something like one-hundred-thousand Iraqis, most of whom were civilians, were slaughtered or maimed. Blair’s association with the companies (mostly oil companies) that benefitted from the destruction and subsequent re-building of Iraq allegedly made him a billionaire. Over the course of Blair’s ‘Labour’ government, the transference of wealth from those at the bottom end of society, to those at the top, actually accelerated (a trend that continued even after Gordon Brown had taken over from Blair).

What’s clear from the votes cast this time around is not that people particularly wanted Labour; more that they emphatically didn’t want the Conservatives. The Tories achieved only 6.8 million votes. It was a switch to the even more right-wing (if that’s possible!) Reform party, together with some heavy duty tactical voting, that did for the Tories.

But what can we expect from Labour this time round? The determination to stick to ‘first past the post’ doesn’t bode well. Nor does Starmer’s stated commitment to allowing religious organisations to control much of the education sector (a continuing, cross-party initiative that has seen more and more parents unable to get their kids into anything other than a church school). On the other hand, he has committed to ending the disastrous forty-year experiment of private rail ownership. Who knows, if that works out well, perhaps Labour will do the same for water, electricity, gas, etc. etc.? They have said they will prioritise sorting out the NHS (though private sector involvement – one of the main reasons the NHS is failing – will continue). Cleaning up our sewage-laden rivers and seas is also a stated priority.

Though I have serious reservations about the new Labour government, I do feel a relief to finally be rid of the Conservatives. Labour don’t always look after the people they purport to represent. The Tories, on the other hand, always do, which is why it amazes me they ever get enough votes to be elected. If it wasn’t for the smokescreen of lies and propaganda from the establishment and the media, the general population would know that the Tories goal is to further the ends of the wealthy elites, at the expense of the rest of us, and they would never get in. At least in the past they did have a reputation for sound economic management. But for some time now they have been becoming ever more incompetent, and their greed and stupidity reached incredible proportions. When a Prime Minister’s advisors go to a bookies and place bets on a July election just a few days before the PM announces… a July election, you know the feeding frenzy is out of control!

While I’m cynical about the new Labour government, I do have hopes that things will change for the better. I don’t think Starmer is like Tony Blair (I hope these words don’t come back to haunt me!) I do think the new regime will show a level of competency we haven’t seen in British politics for some years. And they seem to genuinely want to form mutually beneficial relationships with our European neighbours. So who knows? Only time will tell…

[1.] See:
– The Electoral Reform Society
– Make Votes Matter

text and image © graham wright 2024