How Keir Starmer can take back control - FT中文网
登录×
电子邮件/用户名
密码
记住我
请输入邮箱和密码进行绑定操作:
请输入手机号码,通过短信验证(目前仅支持中国大陆地区的手机号):
请您阅读我们的用户注册协议隐私权保护政策,点击下方按钮即视为您接受。
英国工党

How Keir Starmer can take back control

Unforced errors and unanswered questions are undermining Britain’s Labour government

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and his chancellor, Rachel Reeves. He needs a capable and trusted top team to begin serious policy delivery and make nimbler political judgments

Governments do not usually need a reset after barely 12 weeks in office. But Britain’s Labour party went into what ought to have been a celebratory conference this week with its approval ratings, and consumer confidence, both tumbling thanks to political mis-steps and excessively gloomy messaging since its landslide victory in July. Speeches that were somewhat more upbeat and sure-footed from chancellor Rachel Reeves and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer may help to stabilise the government. More work lies ahead, however, to get its project back on the rails.

The first step must be for Starmer to “take back control” — and bring to government the discipline that defined Labour’s election campaign. Vacancies in key Downing Street positions should be quickly filled. The prime minister needs a capable and trusted top team to begin serious policy delivery and make nimbler political judgments. Ministers may deem the recent furore over accepting “freebies” such as clothing a petty issue, especially after Tory-era excesses. But they underestimated the damage to public perceptions.

A second priority is to hone the communications strategy. Two years after Liz Truss’s disastrous mini-budget, and given historical market mistrust of Labour, the government has to pursue its commitment to fiscal discipline. But it should also avoid an undue pessimism that unsettles businesses, investors and households. The chancellor’s hint this week that she would tweak the government’s fiscal rules to allow higher capital expenditure was a welcome leavening of the message.

The prime minister’s vow, meanwhile, to be honest about the difficult trade-offs of governing was in many ways refreshing after years of Tory “cakeism”. A readiness to make unpopular decisions rather than offer deceptive but easy answers is a counter to rightwing populists. But trade-offs should be chosen with care. Agreeing costly pay settlements with rail unions — even as the government ends payments to pensioners for winter fuel — will seem questionable to many.

Starmer the forensic ex-prosecutor should not underestimate what Bill Clinton called the “vision thing”. A government whose electoral victory rested on an unusually narrow portion of the vote still has to communicate more clearly the essence of its purpose. The prime minister went some way with his talk of a future-facing NHS, secure borders, clean energy, and new homes, roads and schools. But he needs to pull the strands together into a Big Idea.

When it comes to a key thread of his speech — the need for a more active government in Britain — Labour should tread carefully. The UK does require a government that ensures hospitals, prisons and housing are built, and trains made to work, and invests where necessary. But often this should be in conjunction with private business and funding. The goal must be to create the infrastructure for investment and entrepreneurialism to thrive so that growth can take off — but without overweening interference.

Starmer’s Labour was embraced by many businesses in the run-up to the election. They appreciate stability and a growth agenda. But they need to see more commitment to the needs of private enterprise. A coming package on employee rights, which many companies fear will tilt the balance too far towards workers, will be a key test.

An investment summit and Labour’s first Budget next month will provide further opportunities to reassure business. After again ruling out tax rises for “working people”, the government must avoid placing a stifling burden on wealth generators and scaring away investors. The woeful Conservative legacy means business, like the rest of the country, needs Labour’s project to succeed.

版权声明:本文版权归FT中文网所有,未经允许任何单位或个人不得转载,复制或以任何其他方式使用本文全部或部分,侵权必究。

大型科技公司为何在英国煽动动荡?

埃隆•马斯克在贝尔法斯特、南安普顿及更广泛地区放大反移民情绪的做法,不能仅用意识形态来解释。

乌克兰和平窗口不会永远敞开

目前有机会让这场冲突“冻结”,但普京对“完全胜利”的幻想可能会成为障碍。

拉丁美洲的世界杯球衣如何沦为政治工具

极右翼民粹主义者已经把自家阵营的队服当成标志性符号,而左翼正试图夺回这块阵地。

欧洲股票具备美国同行无法匹敌的“和平红利”

如果伊朗冲突引发的能源短缺缓解,欧洲公司在复苏方面将获益更多。

哈利•波特毁了英国

我们最宝贵的资产已经被魔法部挪用。

为什么我们彼此不再交流?

与聊天机器人对话永远无法带来同样的人类滋养。
设置字号×
最小
较小
默认
较大
最大
分享×