As long as you’re
only playing Snakes and Ladders, being returned to square one is indubitably a
bad thing. Real life is rather more complicated; for anyone who feels that they
were happier and/or better off when they were on square one, being returned
there is potentially an attractive proposition.
In his latest
attempt to convince the rest of us that letting him carry on would be better
than allowing Keir Starmer a turn, the PM has today said
that, “The choice is whether we stick with the plan that is starting to
deliver the long-term change our country needs, or go back to square one with
the Labour party”, as though Starmer is some sort of Pol Pot, determined to
drag us back to year zero.
In truth, the idea of a year zero seems to have more in common with the
swivel-eyed tendency in the Tory Party than with Keir Starmer. And it probably
comes in pints.
Sunak doesn’t
actually define where square one is, but anybody reading his words would be
entirely reasonable in believing that he is referring to the time before the
Tories came to power in 2010. The problem with his statement is that most of us
felt better off then than we do now. Whilst it wasn’t exactly heaven on earth,
most public services worked better than they do today, and most of us were more
financially secure than we are today. And no-one has to take my word for that;
at least some Tory MPs are saying exactly the same thing. Here,
for instance, is Danny Kruger: “The narrative that the public has now firmly
adopted – that over 13 years things have got worse – is one we just have to
acknowledge and admit.”
A return to square
one has a lot going for it. If there were any truth in what Sunak said, then he
has just done a good selling job on behalf of Starmer and the Labour Party. The
problem, though, is that (as ever) what Sunak says makes little or no sense and
bears little relationship to the truth. Just about the one thing that Starmer has
never promised (so, in fairness, it’s at least one promise on which he hasn’t
reneged so far) is a return to how things were; everything he says is
predicated on an assumption that current levels of government expenditure are all
that can be delivered, and that there is no room for a return to the days when
health and other public expenditure were boosted year on year.
In truth, even the
bit in Sunak’s comments saying that the choice is “…whether we stick with
the plan…” or not is a lie. It’s not a choice that Labour are presenting.
The very best that Starmer is offering is to deliver that plan (insofar as it
can even be dignified with that title) with a degree of competence and
integrity which has thus far eluded the Tories. Maybe competent austerity is
better in some unexplained way than incompetent austerity, and integrity is
certainly an under-rated commodity; but a transformational programme it ain’t.
And it offers no hope of a return to what almost looks like an idyllic square
one after the last 13 years. Starmer seems to be Sunak’s greatest asset, even
if he doesn’t really understand how to exploit it.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment