If you must have a mantra, and we all expect it now from our leaders, ‘stability’ is not a bad choice, certainly better than the ‘growth’ or ‘delivery’ that I have alluded to before. Derived from the Latin root ‘stare’, to stand, it points to a state in which Prime Ministers stop falling from their perches, policy does not change, and harmony reigns over the government, the Bank of England, and the bond markets, even though it acknowledges implicitly that the period it succeeds has been far from stable.
The word is attractive to those of a conservative frame of mind, especially considering that the opposite is instability or chaos. Indeed, it has the political merit of allowing those who oppose it to be characterised as dangerous revolutionaries. But, despite everyone’s longing now for a period of political calm, there is a downside. All politicians want to make a change, so political stability is never attainable short of a serious external threat or ruthless dictatorship, as currently in Ukraine and China respectively.
Mr Sunak was also a good choice for a party in difficulties. His manner appears forthright and reassuring and he has fewer enemies among his MPs than do many others, but there are still some who are likely to trouble him and he seems to be disliked by most ordinary members of the Conservative Party who are resentful at having lost Johnson and Truss. His very presence, a wealthy financier, as PM has already calmed the markets and the pound has mysteriously risen somewhat against the dollar. This makes one wonder why.
Plainly it is not the man himself; rather it is the policies expected from him, and there lies the rub. He is Odysseus, sailing between the Scylla of Party Rupture and the Charybdis of his party’s low-tax, small-State ideology. And already, tied to the mast of his briefly stable vessel, he must hear the siren voices of those voters who expect a Welfare State at no cost.
To attain a stable political environment, Mr Sunak had three options: to choose for his Cabinet either the best people available, to select those who have adhered to the different factions in his party in the hope of uniting them in a common cause, or to compromise. Inevitably, he chose the last option though it will be presented as the first. For now, he has avoided the bloody teeth of the six-headed monster Scylla (five of whose heads chewed up Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Kwarteng) but is being sucked into the whirlpool which consumes ideologues, several of whom are in his Cabinet. And right-wing ideology levels are high in the blood stream of his party.
These are indeed desperate times. The most serious challenge for all governments is climate change, but it appears to be of minor importance to his party. Sunak himself has declared that he is too busy to attend CoP-27, a decision of surprising foolishness that gives weight to the news that despite his vast wealth he accepted donations worth almost half a million pounds from right-wing billionaires in his bid for the job. One minister who attracted international approval at CoP-26 was Alok Sharma â he was summarily dismissed from the Cabinet. What a signal this gives!
It is very much to be hoped that King Charles will change his mind and attend, in response to the request from Mr Kerry, and signal to the world that he is above politics and at least understands the need for action. Weakness on pressing for no further coal and oil exploration and opposition to further development of on-shore wind are wrong-headed policies, not adequately offset by reversal of the proposal to prevent fracking. It is surprising that one of the world’s most prominent Hindus is prepared to be seen on the side of the oil and gas barons who are behind the destruction of nature.
The second great challenge is inequity and the growing number of people on the margin of survival from lack of money for food, energy and housing. The increase of this group has been obvious for at least two decades and has been exacerbated by government policies. Action now needs to be radical, essentially to redistribute wealth dramatically from those who can afford it, who include most of the professional middle class. I believe it can only be sold to us as a necessary contribution to the future of our young in a time of changing climate. This needs a leader with the courage, eloquence and determination of both Churchill and Attlee. I wonder if such a person is at present in parliament.
Two related challenges are the tide of refugees and starvation in East Africa. These require international agreements and cooperation. The revival of faith in Ms Braverman, quite apart from signalling that lack of integrity is once again acceptable in ministers, does not generate hope that these issues will be addressed with engagement of the cerebral cortex or without dispute. Although the coincidence of poor refugees incarcerated and desperate for work and employers crying out for labour is obvious to all, no minister appears to consider any option other than sending them to Rwanda.
Then there is the issue of the bonfire of EU regulations. I have discussed this before in some detail (Red tape or bloody bandages? SR, 28 September 2022). Some 2,000 regulations, attributed to the EU but in the drafting of which the UK was heavily involved and indeed in many cases the dominant voice, are apparently to be scrapped and new, better UK regulations to be substituted.
Pretty well every government department will be involved, taking the time and energy of hundreds of civil servants who in turn will require to recruit thousands of experts from academia, business and law to guide them along a path which has already been well trodden during the original process that led to their formulation. Just think of a limited number, from air and water quality and food and pharmaceutical standards to workplace safety and housing standards. All these were proposed by expert committees and formally agreed by representatives of employers, unions and governments across the EU for our common protection and benefit.
At every level, the UK had a voice and nothing was agreed without our consent. This is yet another consequence of the xenophobia that led to Brexit, a waste of time, energy and money to no good effect other than appeasement of a few ideologues.
The siren voices to be resisted are represented on the Conservative back benches, the residual cry of the Brexiteers as they strive to convince themselves that they were right and a glorious new era awaits an unchained Great England. ‘Lower taxes, reduce public services’ they sing, in voices melodious to the Hayekian right. Will Mr Sunak, tied to the mast of economic orthodoxy, avoid those rocks and will his crew clear the wax from their ears and succumb to the siren voices? That is the test of the stability of his craft, his government.
Anthony Seaton is Emeritus Professor of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at Aberdeen University and Senior Consultant to the Edinburgh Institute of Occupational Medicine. The views expressed are his own