Great Britain

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Keir Starmer Is Quietly Bending the U.K. Labour Party to His Will

      by

      Political observers from his own side say he has been “ruthless” in reshaping the party as it looks to reclaim power.LONDON — The leader of Britain’s opposition, Keir Starmer, can often seem more like the technocratic human rights lawyer he once was than the no-holds-barred politician now reshaping the Labour Party with an eye toward making it more electable.But as his former allies on the left wing of his party have discovered, appearances can be deceptive.Mr. Starmer prompted a bitter rift recently when he banned his leftist predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn, from running as a Labour lawmaker, leaving the former leader claiming democratic procedures had been trampled and warning that his supporters were “not going anywhere.”But beneath the ugly media brawl, the unceremonious purging of Mr. Corbyn was a substantive victory for Mr. Starmer, strengthening his already firm grip over the party. Three years after taking over, he has quietly but efficiently marginalized Labour’s once ascendant left-wing, enforced strict discipline over his top political team and grabbed control of the party machinery, including its selection of Labour candidates for Parliament.“So far the processes that he has put in place have been utterly ruthless, and the left underestimated him,” said John McTernan, a political strategist and onetime aide to the former prime minister, Tony Blair.The lesson for his enemies is perhaps not to mistake Mr. Starmer’s courteous and mild-mannered bearing — or absence of fanfare — for a lack of willingness to play political hardball.“Keir Starmer is not narrating what he’s doing,” Mr. McTernan added. “He’s just doing it.”Mr. Starmer banned his predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn, center from running as a Labour lawmaker.Henry Nicholls/ReutersTom Baldwin, a senior adviser to another former Labour leader, Ed Miliband, agrees. “In his absolute determination to remove all obstacles to victory, Keir Starmer is more ruthless and competitive than any Labour leader I’ve ever seen,” he said.He added: “Tony Blair had a very clear view about where he wanted to go, but did he chuck any of his predecessors out of the party? No.”A spokesman for Mr. Starmer did not respond to a request for comment.Under Mr. Corbyn’s leadership, Labour’s 2017 general election campaign scored an upset by depriving the prime minister at the time, Theresa May of the Conservative Party, of her parliamentary majority, signaling her political decline. At that zenith of his political career Mr. Corbyn, often likened to Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, basked in the adulation of enthusiastic young supporters, some of whom sang his name at the Glastonbury rock festival.Two years later the bubble burst and Labour suffered its worst general-election defeat since 1935, while Mr. Corbyn’s leadership was tarnished by cases of antisemitism in his party.There followed a highly critical report by the Equality and Human Rights Commission into Labour’s handling of antisemitism complaints. In 2020, when Mr. Corbyn claimed that the scale of the problem was “dramatically overstated” by opponents, Mr. Starmer suspended him from Labour’s parliamentary group, forcing him to sit as an independent.It was at Mr. Starmer’s behest that Labour’s governing body, its National Executive Committee, completed the political purge of the former leader last month, provoking a surprisingly muted reaction from the party’s left wing that underscored its dwindling influence.Jon Lansman, a founder of Momentum, a left-wing pressure group within the Labour movement, told Times Radio that Mr. Starmer “unfortunately is behaving as if he was some kind of Putin of the Labour Party. That is not the way we do politics.”But asked if he would campaign for Mr. Corbyn were the former leader to run for election not as a Labour Party candidate but as an independent, Mr. Lansman replied: “No, I certainly wouldn’t. I want to see Keir Starmer elected as prime minister of this country, and we need a Labour government.”Keir Starmer is widely expected to become the next occupant of 10 Downing Street.Henry Nicholls/ReutersOther internal critics have kept a low profile sensing that they, too, might fall victim to the purge. After all, Mr. Corbyn was not the first left-winger to be exiled to Labour’s equivalent of Siberia. In 2020, Mr. Starmer fired a lawmaker, Rebecca Long-Bailey, from his top team after she shared on Twitter an interview with Maxine Peake in which the actress claimed that the U.S. police tactics that killed George Floyd were learned from Israeli secret services.The silence from internal critics spoke of the political transformation Mr. Starmer has achieved seemingly out of public sight.Elected to Parliament in 2015, Mr. Starmer never adhered to the hard left of the party but nonetheless served in Mr. Corbyn’s top team and campaigned to make him prime minister.When Mr. Corbyn quit as leader in 2019, Mr. Starmer straddled the internal factions, reassuring the left by arguing that Labour should not “oversteer” away from his predecessor’s agenda.Mr. Corbyn’s supporters say that is exactly what Mr. Starmer has done, while other critics argue he has offered no vision to excite voters, seeming content to capitalize on the current Conservative government’s unpopularity.But breaking with Mr. Corbyn, as part of a wider “detoxification” strategy, seems to have helped opinion poll ratings that now put Labour well ahead of the Conservatives.National voting must take place by January 2025. With Mr. Starmer in a seemingly commanding position to become the next prime minister after four successive general-election defeats, Labour lawmakers have found a new discipline, reinforcing their leader’s authority.Mr. Starmer and Rachel Reeves, who leads economic policy for the Labour Party, canvassing last month in Swindon, England.Isabel Infantes/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesFor Mr. Starmer there are some dangers in purging his predecessor. Were Mr. Corbyn to run as an independent in the constituency in north London that he has represented since 1983 (including for more than a decade when Mr. Blair led the party), he might win. Even if he lost, Mr. Corbyn could attract media attention and distract from Labour’s wider campaign.Another risk is that the party loses some of the young, enthusiastic supporters that Mr. Corbyn attracted.James Schneider, a former aide to Mr. Corbyn, described Mr. Starmer’s approach as a “barefaced political attack on the ideas and social forces that were mobilizing to redistribute wealth and power in this country, and that came quite close to taking office” in the 2017 general election.The assault on the left had, Mr. Schneider conceded, been “in a technical sense extremely effective and swift,” catching that wing of the party off guard, adding, “I don’t think anyone thought it would be quite so dramatic and quite so total as it has been.”Such is the stifling control exercised by Mr. Starmer’s allies that only one candidate from the left has so far succeeded in dozens of Labour internal selections for parliamentary candidates, Mr. Schneider said.Critics have accused the party leadership of fixing the process, weeding out candidates it dislikes with “due diligence” checks (claims it denies).But ensuring that Mr. Starmer can rely on those elected on a Labour ticket could be critical if the next general election is close, and if the party wins a small majority.Allies say Mr. Starmer’s uncompromising tactics have paid off. Mr. McTernan, the former Blair aide, described his hold over Labour as “undislodgeable,” adding that he has tight control over its lawmakers, the National Executive Committee and the shadow cabinet — Mr. Starmer’s top team.“He also has the trade unions loyally lined up behind him, so it’s hard to know what else he needs to do,” Mr. McTernan said. More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Scotland’s National Party Picks Humza Yousaf to Succeed Sturgeon

      by

      Humza Yousaf is on course to become the first Muslim to lead a democratic western European nation, and when that happens, he will confront several daunting obstacles.The pro-independence Scottish National Party on Monday elected Humza Yousaf, the country’s health secretary, as its top official, putting the 37-year-old minister on track to become the first Muslim to lead a democratic western European nation.Mr. Yousaf emerged with a narrow victory in a bruising leadership race that followed the surprise resignation last month of Nicola Sturgeon, who had dominated Scottish politics for almost a decade as the country’s first minister and leader of the S.N.P.In choosing Mr. Yousaf, members of his party opted for the candidate thought most likely to stick with Ms. Sturgeon’s progressive agenda, rejecting a more socially conservative contender, Kate Forbes.“We will be the generation that delivers independence for Scotland,” said Mr. Yousaf after the result was announced, and before a vote on Tuesday in the Scottish Parliament to confirm him as the country’s first minister.As the new leader of the S.N.P. — the largest party in Scotland’s Parliament — that should be a formality. But, referring to some of the wider problems he faces, Mr. Yousaf appealed for unity after a divisive leadership contest that fractured a party previously renowned for its discipline.“Where there are divisions to heal we must do so and do so quickly because we have a job to do, and as a party we are at our strongest when we are united,” he said.In a sometimes emotional victory speech, Mr. Yousaf thanked his family, including his deceased grandparents, who emigrated to Scotland.“I am forever thankful that my grandparents made the trip from the Punjab to Scotland over 60 years ago,” he told the audience at Murrayfield, Scotland’s national rugby stadium, where the leadership results were announced. “As immigrants to this country, who knew barely a word of English, they could not have imagined their grandson would one day be on the cusp of being the next first minister of Scotland.”Sunder Katwala, director of British Future, a research institute that focuses on identity issues, described Mr. Yousaf as “the first Muslim to be elected as a national leader in any western democracy,” writing that it was “a breakthrough moment that should resonate well beyond Scotland.”That in part reflects a growing diversity in the higher reaches of British politics. Anas Sarwar, leader of the Scottish opposition Labour Party, is also Muslim, while Britain’s prime minister Rishi Sunak, follows the Hindu faith.Though Mr. Yousaf was on top after the first ballot, he failed to win more than half of the votes cast by party members in the initial round of voting, as required to win the race. But once the third-place candidate, Ash Regan, was eliminated and her votes were redistributed, Mr. Yousaf won 52.1 percent, to 47.9 percent for Ms. Forbes.Scotland’s outgoing first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, center, at an heatlh center in Fife. She had dominated Scottish politics for almost a decadePeter Summers/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesHaving served as transport minister, justice secretary and health secretary, Mr. Yousaf was seen as the preferred candidate of the party’s establishment, but his record in government was questioned by his opponents.“You were transport minister and the trains were never on time, when you were justice secretary the police were stretched to breaking point, and now as health minister we’ve got record high waiting times,” said Ms. Forbes, his main challenger, during a televised leadership debate.The social conservatism and strong religious beliefs of Ms. Forbes, who was on maternity leave from her position of finance secretary when Ms. Sturgeon quit, featured prominently in the leadership contest.A member of the evangelical Free Church of Scotland, Ms. Forbes said she would have voted against single-sex marriage had she been in the Scottish Parliament when it was approved in 2014, and that she believed that having children outside of marriage is “wrong” according to her faith.Another social question — gender recognition — became a political battleground just before Ms. Sturgeon’s resignation, when Britain’s government rejected legislation from Scotland’s Parliament making it easier for people to change their gender. Mr. Yousaf said on Monday that he would seek to challenge the British government’s decision.Had Ms. Forbes been elected, the Scottish Greens might have withdrawn their support for the S.N.P.-led government in Edinburgh, reducing it to a minority administration.The new leader faces numerous challenges both in replacing Ms. Sturgeon, who was a popular leader and skilled communicator, and in charting a course to independence.Ms. Sturgeon took over the leadership after Scots voted by 55 percent to 45 percent against independence in a referendum in 2014. Since then, sentiment on the issue has not shifted significantly.Ms. Sturgeon’s resignation came after the British Supreme Court ruled that a second referendum could not be held without the agreement of Britain’s government in London, which opposes such a move. Mr. Yousaf’s task will be to try build support for independence to such a level — perhaps around 60 percent in opinion polls — that it would be politically impossible for London to ignore calls for another vote.His leadership victory also has implications for the rest of Britain, where a general election must take place by January 2025. If the result is close, the S.N.P.’s performance could play a decisive role in determining the next prime minister.Given the divisions within the S.N.P. and the difficulties replacing Ms. Sturgeon, Britain’s main opposition Labour Party, which once dominated Scottish politics but has seen its influence dwindle as the S.N.P. gathered strength, now senses an opportunity to claw back some of its old seats in Scotland. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Nicola Sturgeon Resigns: What to Know, and What’s Next for Scotland

      by

      The decision by Ms. Sturgeon to step down as the country’s leader came as a shock. What is her legacy, and why did she quit?The impending departure of Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s longest-serving first minister, who said on Wednesday that she would step down, has roiled the nation’s political establishment.One of Britain’s most powerful politicians and a fierce champion for Scottish independence, Ms. Sturgeon cited exhaustion and said that she had become too polarizing a figure to continue after eight years in the role.Scotland is a part of the United Kingdom, which also includes England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and though the British government is responsible for some policies across the union in areas like foreign policy and defense, it shares power with elected officials on the country level, including Ms. Sturgeon, who determine policies on health care and the economy, among other areas.Though Ms. Sturgeon will remain in office until a successor is chosen, her resignation prompted shock at a time of division on issues including transgender rights and Scottish independence. Here’s what you need to know.Who is Nicola Sturgeon?The first woman to lead Scotland’s government, Ms. Sturgeon, 52, rose through her party ranks to become a force in Scottish politics.Born in the coastal town of Irvine in 1970, she joined the then-marginal Scottish National Party at just 16. She later worked as a lawyer in Glasgow before being elected as a regional representative in 1999.She served as the S. N. P.’s deputy first minister before becoming its leader in 2014 — months before the party won a landslide victory in Britain’s general election that propelled her into Scotland’s most prominent political position. Her inspiration to run for office came in part from Margaret Thatcher, she said, because she was opposed to Thatcher’s politics and horrified by the impact of her policies on Scotland, which led to surging unemployment.Ms. Sturgeon is married to Peter Murrell, the chief executive of the S.N.P., whom she first met at a youth camp.Ms. Sturgeon resigned as first minister at Bute House in Edinburgh on Wednesday.Pool photo by Jane BarlowWhy did she quit?Ms. Sturgeon said the “brutality” of political life and exhaustion contributed to her decision to resign.“I could go on for another few months, six months, a year maybe,” she said in a hastily arranged news conference on Wednesday in Edinburgh. “But I know that as time passed, I would have less and less energy to give to the job.”“Giving absolutely everything of yourself to this job — it’s the only way to do it,” she added. “But in truth, that can only be done by anyone for so long.”The announcement came as a surprise: Only last month, Ms. Sturgeon had told the BBC that she was not ready to step down, and in her resignation speech said she had wrestled with the decision for weeks.It drew comparisons to the resignation of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand last month, who said being an effective leader required “a full tank plus a bit in reserve for those unexpected challenges.”Ms. Sturgeon called the party her extended family because she joined so early, at age 16. “Being your first minister has been the privilege of my life,” she said. But she said she had become too polarizing a figure to effectively lead in the country’s tense environment and that the job had taken a toll on her and her family.“Maybe I want to spend a bit of time on Nicola Sturgeon, the person, the human being,” she said.What is she known for?A deft hand at navigating the power-sharing system of the United Kingdom, Ms. Sturgeon has been a dominant figure in the push for Scottish independence.She has argued for independence as a way for Scotland to secure autonomy over its own decisions while engaging on the world stage, framing nationalism as outward looking rather than parochial.As deputy minister, she led a failed referendum in 2014 for Scottish independence, and had announced new plans for another that would take place in October, but the Supreme Court ruled that would need the approval of Britain’s government.Supporters of Scottish independence marched in Glasgow in 2021. Ms. Sturgeon had sought another referendum on the matter for this fall, but it was blocked by Britain’s Supreme Court.Robert Perry/EPA, via ShutterstockShe also emerged as a sure-footed and cautious leader during the coronavirus pandemic. She kept virus restrictions in place longer than England, challenging what she saw as a more lax approach. Scotland has reported fewer deaths and positive cases relative to its population compared with England. Ms. Sturgeon described leading the country through the pandemic as “by far the toughest thing I’ve done.”More recently, Ms. Sturgeon had clashed with Britain’s government over transgender rights, after the Scottish Parliament passed legislation that would allow transgender people to have the gender with which they identify legally recognized without the need for a medical diagnosis. But the law was rejected by Britain’s government, which cited other equality laws. Her support for the legislation and for transgender rights has mired Ms. Sturgeon in a culture war, including a case over a convicted rapist who was briefly held in a women’s prison.What happens next?The leadership changeover will not be immediate, and Ms. Surgeon has said she will stay in the role for now.But her announcement precipitated the formal submission of her resignation to King Charles III, after which the S.N.P. will have several weeks to elect another party leader to take the reins.Who might succeed her?There is no clear front-runner for the leadership role, but some names have emerged as potential successors as Scotland’s next first minister. They include:Kate Forbes, 32, a former finance secretary who has often been tipped as next in line to Ms. Sturgeon. Elected to the Scottish Parliament in 2016, Ms. Forbes is a fluent Gaelic speaker and a member of the Free Church of Scotland, an evangelical Presbyterian denomination.Angus Robertson, 53, a senior party member who has served as a Scottish lawmaker in the British House of Commons. A former journalist, Mr. Robertson is currently a cabinet secretary for the Constitution, external affairs and culture.John Swinney, 58, Ms. Sturgeon’s deputy, who was also appointed cabinet secretary for Covid Recovery in May 2021. He led the party from 2000 to 2005 when it did not have a majority of seats in Scottish Parliament.Humza Yousaf, 37, cabinet secretary for health and social care. Elected to the Scottish Parliament in 2011 at age 26, Mr. Yousaf, a practicing Muslim of South Asian descent, was the first person from a minority ethnic background to hold a cabinet position. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Before Stepping Down, Nicola Sturgeon Faced a Battle Over Transgender Rights

      by

      A battle over her support for transgender rights is not, by Nicola Sturgeon’s account, the reason she is quitting as Scotland’s first minister. But the issue has dogged her in recent weeks, precipitating a clash with the British government and ensnaring her in a messy episode involving a convicted rapist who was held in a women’s prison.Ms. Sturgeon’s problems began in December when the Scottish Parliament passed legislation that would allow transgender people to have the gender with which they identify legally recognized and to get a new birth certificate without a medical diagnosis. Britain’s government swiftly rejected the law, saying that it conflicted with equality laws that apply across Britain, including Scotland.That prompted a crisis in Britain’s power-sharing system, known as devolution, with Ms. Sturgeon calling it a “a full-frontal attack on our democratically elected Scottish Parliament and its ability to make its own decisions.”For Ms. Sturgeon, the transgender legislation is part of her declared commitment to protect minority groups. But while the law was supported in Parliament, it has divided the broader Scottish population and become a cudgel in the culture wars.It has also become conflated with the case of Isla Bryson, a transgender woman who was convicted of raping two women before her transition. She was initially placed in a women’s prison while awaiting sentencing, a decision that prompted an outcry by critics who said it jeopardized the safety of other inmates.Ms. Sturgeon later announced that Ms. Bryson had been moved to a men’s prison. But the handling of the case exposed Ms. Sturgeon to sharp criticism and put her in an awkward position when she was quizzed repeatedly at a news conference about whether she regarded Ms. Bryson as a woman.“She regards herself as a woman,” a visibly frustrated Ms. Sturgeon replied. “I regard the individual as a rapist.” More

    • 100 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      How Does Scotland Fit Into the UK Government?

      by

      The news that Nicola Sturgeon, the first minister of Scotland, will step down raises a variety of questions about how the United Kingdom — England, Scotland and Wales, along with Northern Ireland — is governed. Here is a quick guide.What role does the king play?The United Kingdom operates under a constitutional monarchy. While there is no single written constitutional document, laws and carefully documented traditions together form a Constitution that binds the monarch, currently King Charles III.These rules have accumulated in centuries of legislation. Together, they make the king a constitutional monarch: an embodiment of power and statehood with no personal public role in politics, and tight constraints even on private influence.Who runs the U.K. government?Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is the current leader of the government of the United Kingdom. He took over as the country’s 57th prime minister in October, after his predecessor, Liz Truss, lasted just six weeks in the post.The role of the prime minister, according to the U.K. government’s official website, is to oversee the operation of the civil service and government agencies. The leader also appoints members of the government and is the principal government figure in the House of Commons.Where does Scotland fit in?Here’s where it gets interesting. Mr. Sunak is responsible for some, but not all, of what happens across the United Kingdom. His government makes decisions for England, but some powers and responsibilities are left to elected officials in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland — a result of what is known as devolution.(Northern Ireland is having its own leadership issues at the moment, after the first minister resigned last year and the government remains in limbo.)In Scotland, the government makes decisions relating to the economy, education, health, justice and other areas. The government enforced its own Covid policies during the pandemic, and it has the power to set its own income-tax rates. Decisions regarding immigration, foreign policy and defense are left to the U.K. government.How are first ministers appointed?Following a Scottish parliamentary election, a first minister is nominated by the Parliament in Edinburgh and is appointed by the monarch.The first minister is responsible for appointing Scottish ministers to create a cabinet and is responsible for setting and carrying out government policy. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      As Sunak Tries to Move Ahead, He’s Haunted by Prime Ministers Past

      by

      Prime Minister Rishi Sunak of Britain made moves to recharge his government, but he is being harried by Liz Truss and Boris Johnson, who are not fading away.LONDON — Prime Minister Rishi Sunak tried to recharge Britain’s beleaguered government on Tuesday, shuffling cabinet ministers and creating new departments to focus on science, technology and energy policy. But even as he moves forward, Mr. Sunak is haunted by his two ousted predecessors, Liz Truss and Boris Johnson, both of whom are mounting noisy rehabilitation campaigns, potentially at his expense.Mr. Sunak framed his latest moves, just after he marked 100 days in office, as a way to meet goals he set out last month, which include cutting inflation in half, reigniting economic growth and shortening wait times in hospitals. He also named a reliable insider to chair the Conservative Party, after being forced to fire the previous chairman, Nadhim Zahawi, over his personal tax affairs.But Mr. Sunak’s critics fell into predictable cavils about “rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.” The Conservative Party, they noted, remains mired behind the opposition Labour Party by double digits in polls. Restructuring government bureaucracy could cause months of policy paralysis. And the drumbeat of bad news, from nationwide strikes to overcrowded emergency rooms, continues without relief.If that is not enough, he is also being harried by Mr. Johnson and Ms. Truss. Both have gleefully disregarded any notions of fading quietly to the backbenches after their truncated stints in Downing Street. And both are defending their legacies in ways that could raise fresh obstacles for Mr. Sunak.Boris Johnson during a visit to the U.S. Capitol last week.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesDuring a visit to Washington last week, Mr. Johnson urged Britain and the United States to supply Ukraine with heavier weapons, including fighter jets — a step Mr. Sunak and the Biden administration have rejected. Political analysts expect he will weigh in on, and could even disrupt, Mr. Sunak’s efforts to break a logjam with the European Union over post-Brexit trade arrangements in Northern Ireland.Ms. Truss has resurfaced to defend her free-market tax cuts which, despite their deeply destabilizing effect on the British pound and mortgage rates, still have defenders in some corners of the Conservative Party.Politics in BritainA Constitutional Rift: Britain’s government blocked new Scottish legislation that would make it easier for people to legally change their gender, stoking a highly charged debate over transgender rights and potentially handing pro-independence forces a potent weapon.Tory Official Ousted: Struggling to dispel an ethical cloud that has hung over his government, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak fired the chairman of the Conservative Party over his personal tax affairs.A New Pledge: In a sweeping speech on Jan. 4, Mr. Sunak laid out a series of promises to restore the country to prosperity, challenging Britons to hold him to account.Worker Strikes: Crippling strikes across multiple industries have Britain’s Conservative government facing a “winter of discontent,” just as a Labour government did 44 years ago.“It’s obviously far from ideal for Rishi Sunak that two former prime ministers are circling around him,” said Matthew Goodwin, a professor of politics at the University of Kent. “His back is against the wall, and the clock is ticking.”The cabinet reshuffle reflected Mr. Sunak’s technocratic instincts, economic focus, and sensitivity to criticism from champions of tax cuts — like Ms. Truss — that he lacks a convincing strategy to kick-start economic growth.But it also underscored Mr. Sunak’s fragile grip on his party and his determination not to weaken it further by alienating colleagues. Unlike many cabinet reshuffles, this one involved no demotions or firings. Having reluctantly removed Mr. Zahawi, he replaced him with Greg Hands, a competent politician short on charisma.Mr. Sunak named Greg Hands to chair the Conservative Party.Isabel Infantes/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThough the sprawling business department led by Grant Shapps was broken up, he was given charge of a new ministry responsible for energy security and climate policy. Kemi Badenoch, a rising star on the party’s right who was international trade secretary, kept that portfolio while gaining responsibility for business policy, a change intended to align trade strategy with the priorities of British business.Rather than sacrificing anyone, the reshuffle brought in a new minister, with Lucy Frazer taking charge of culture, media, and sport.In some ways, Mr. Sunak’s most eye-catching appointment was that of Lee Anderson as the party’s deputy chairman. A combative, outspoken lawmaker who was a longtime member of the Labour Party before switching to the Conservatives, Mr. Anderson is rarely out of the headlines.Most recently, he caused outrage by claiming that many people who go to food banks do not need them; they simply lack the cooking and budgeting skills to make their own affordable meals. Such dubious claims have made Mr. Anderson a hero among some on the right, checking another box for Mr. Sunak.“The prime minister’s room for maneuver is limited economically, and it’s limited politically because he has factions within his party,” said Tony Travers, a professor of politics at the London School of Economics. “Reconstructing the government and changing people’s roles is one of the things that he can do, and he’s done it.”Lucy Frazer was named minister of culture, media and sport.Andy Rain/EPA, via ShutterstockStill, Mr. Johnson’s enduring popularity with the Tory grass-roots points up the attenuated nature of Mr. Sunak’s leadership. He lost a campaign for prime minister to Ms. Truss in the summer and is still blamed by many in the party’s rank and file for his role in forcing out the scandal-scarred Mr. Johnson last July.Ms. Truss poses little direct risk to Mr. Sunak, given how conspicuously she flamed out after only 49 days in office. But she has reappeared to publicly defend her planned tax cuts, saying they remained a recipe for accelerating Britain’s economy. Her argument could raise the pressure on Mr. Sunak to cut taxes, just months after his government mothballed Ms. Truss’ agenda.In a long essay in the Sunday Telegraph over the weekend, Ms. Truss blamed her downfall on virtually everything except herself.“Fundamentally, I was not given a realistic chance to enact my policies by a very powerful economic establishment, coupled with a lack of political support,” she wrote. “I assumed upon entering Downing Street that my mandate would be respected and accepted. How wrong I was.”Mr. Sunak’s predecessor, Liz Truss, lasted only 49 days in office. She has resurfaced recently to defend her tax cut proposals.Tolga Akmen/EPA, via ShutterstockFew political analysts believe Mr. Sunak’s job is in imminent peril. But a disastrous showing by Conservatives in local elections in May could revive rumors of another party coup.Mr. Sunak has avoided being drawn into debates with his predecessors. On Tuesday, his aides played up the policy advantages of the new ministries. Mr. Sunak’s attraction to Silicon Valley, and desire to replicate it in Britain, was evident in his creation of a department for science, innovation, and technology.Mr. Shapps’s energy department seemed especially timely, given Britain’s ordeal with soaring gas prices. It will seek to ensure long-term security of energy supplies, aides said, which could protect the country from future spikes in inflation.But while the new ministries have logic behind them, shake-ups can distract officials, thrusting them into turf wars over who does what. There is still lingering disruption from the 2020 merger of the foreign office and international development department. In the case of the energy ministry, critics said Mr. Sunak was merely undoing a previous error.“Seven years after the disastrous decision to abolish the Department of Energy, the Conservatives now admit they got it wrong,” Ed Miliband, who speaks for Labour on climate change, said on Twitter.Professor Travers said reorganizing departments “says something about political fashion and the government’s priorities.” But he added, “There is vanishingly little evidence that moving responsibilities around and changing names of departments is going to inevitably lead to better government.” More

    • 63 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Britain’s Cautionary Tale of Self-Destruction

      by

      In December, as many as 500 patients per week were dying in Britain because of E.R. waits, according to the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, a figure rivaling (and perhaps surpassing) the death toll from Covid-19. On average, English ambulances were taking an hour and a half to respond to stroke and heart-attack calls, compared with a target time of 18 minutes; nationwide, 10 times as many patients spent more than four hours waiting in emergency rooms as did in 2011. The waiting list for scheduled treatments recently passed seven million — more than 10 percent of the country — prompting nurses to strike. The National Health Service has been in crisis for years, but over the holidays, as wait times spiked, the crisis moved to the very center of a narrative of national decline.Post-Covid, the geopolitical order has been thrown into tumult. At the beginning of the pandemic, commentators wondered about the fate of the United States, its indifferent political leadership and its apparently diminished “state capacity.” Lately, they have focused more on the sudden weakness of China: its population in decline, its economy struggling more than it has in decades, its “zero Covid” reversal a sign of both political weakness and political overreach, depending on whom you ask.But the descent of Britain is in many ways more dramatic. By the end of next year, the average British family will be less well off than the average Slovenian one, according to a recent analysis by John Burn-Murdoch at The Financial Times; by the end of this decade, the average British family will have a lower standard of living than the average Polish one.On the campaign trail and in office, promising a new prosperity, Boris Johnson used to talk incessantly about “leveling up.” But the last dozen years of uninterrupted Tory rule have produced, in economic terms, something much more like a national flatlining. In a 2020 academic analysis by Nicholas Crafts and Terence C. Mills, recently publicized by the economic historian Adam Tooze, the two economists asked whether the ongoing slowdown in British productivity was unprecedented. Their answer: not quite, but that it was certainly the worst in the last 250 years, since the very beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Which is to say: To find a fitting analogue to the British economic experience of the last decade, you have to reach back to a time before the arrival of any significant growth at all, to a period governed much more by Malthusianism, subsistence-level poverty and a nearly flat economic future. By all accounts, things have gotten worse since their paper was published. According to “Stagnation Nation,” a recent report by a think tank, there are eight million young Brits in the work force today who have not experienced sustained wage growth at all.Over the past several decades, the China boom and then the world’s populist turn have upended one of the basic promises of post-Cold War geopolitics: that free trade would not just bring predictable prosperity but also draw countries into closer political consensus around something like Anglo-American market liberalism. The experience of Britain over the same period suggests another fly in the end-of-history ointment, undermining a separate supposition of that era, which lives on in zombie form in ours: that convergence meant that rich and well-​governed countries would stay that way.For a few weeks last fall, as Liz Truss failed to survive longer as head of government than the shelf life of a head of lettuce, I found myself wondering how a country that had long seen itself — and to some significant degree been seen by the rest of the world — as a very beacon of good governance had become so seemingly ungovernable. It was of course not that long ago that American liberals looked with envy at the British system — admiring the speed of national elections, and the way that new governing coalitions always seemed able to get things done.Post-Brexit, both the outlook for Britain and the quality of its politics look very different, as everyone knows. But focusing on a single “Leave” vote risks confusing that one abrupt outburst of xenophobic populism with what in fact is a long-term story of manufactured decline. As Burn-Murdoch demonstrates in another in his series of data-rich analyses of the British plight, the country’s obvious struggles have a very obvious central cause: austerity. In the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis, and in the name of rebalancing budgets, the Tory-led government set about cutting annual public spending, as a proportion of G.D.P., to 39 percent from 46 percent. The cuts were far larger and more consistent than nearly all of Britain’s peer countries managed to enact; spending on new physical and digital health infrastructure, for instance, fell by half over the decade. In the United States, political reversals and partisan hypocrisy put a check on deep austerity; in Britain, the party making the cuts has stayed steadily in power for 12 years.The consequences have been remarkable: a very different Britain from the one that reached the turn of the millennium as Tony Blair’s “Cool Britannia.” Real wages have actually declined, on average, over the last 15 years, making America’s wage stagnation over the same period seem appealing by comparison. As the political economist William Davies has written, the private sector is also behaving shortsightedly, skimping on long-term investments and extracting profits from financial speculation instead: “To put it bluntly, Britain’s capitalist class has effectively given up on the future.” Even the right-wing Daily Telegraph is now lamenting that England is “becoming a poor country.”Of course, trends aside, in absolute terms Britain remains a wealthy place: the sixth-largest economy in the world, though its G.D.P. is now smaller than that of India, its former colony. And while the deluded promises of Brexit boosters obviously haven’t come to pass, neither have the bleakest projections: food shortages, crippling labor crunches or economic chaos.Instead, there has been a slow, sighing decay — one that makes contemporary Britain a revealing case study in the way we talk and think about the fates of nations and the shape of contemporary history. Optimists like to point to global graphs of long-term progress, but if the political experience of the last decade has taught us anything, it is that whether the world as a whole is richer than it was 50 years ago matters much less to the people on it today than who got those gains, and how they compare with expectations. Worldwide child mortality statistics are indeed encouraging, as are measures of global poverty. But it’s cold comfort to point out to an American despairing over Covid-era life expectancy declines that, in fact, a child born today can still expect to live longer than one born in 1995, for instance, or to tell a Brit worrying over his or her economic prospects that added prosperity is likely to come eventually — at the same level enjoyed by economies in the former Eastern Bloc.Can Britain even stomach such a comparison? The wealthy West has long regarded development as a race that has already and definitively been won, with suspense remaining primarily about how quickly and how fully the rest of the world might catch up. Rich countries could stumble, the triumphalist narrative went, but even the worst-case scenarios would look something like Japan — a rich country that stalled out and stubbornly stopped growing. But Japan is an economic utopia compared with Argentina, among the richest countries of the world a century ago, or Italy, which has tripped its way into instability over the last few decades. Britain has long since formally relinquished its dreams of world domination, but the implied bargain of imperial retreat was something like a tenured chair at the table of global elders. As it turns out, things can fall apart in the metropole too. Over two centuries, a tiny island nation made itself an empire and a capitalist fable, essentially inventing economic growth and then, powered by it, swallowing half the world. Over just two decades now, it has remade itself as a cautionary tale.David Wallace-Wells (@dwallacewells), a writer for Opinion and a columnist for The New York Times Magazine, is the author of “The Uninhabitable Earth.” More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Sunak Makes Sweeping Pledges to Britons, Promising Path to Prosperity

      by

      His promises represented an effort to regain momentum at a time of steep challenges for Britain, but some pressing problems, like the National Health System, defy easy solutions.LONDON — With Britain’s health system and economy both in acute distress, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak on Wednesday laid out a series of promises to restore the country to prosperity and well-being, putting his own political future on the line by challenging Britons to hold him to account.Mr. Sunak’s pledges, delivered in a sweeping speech that echoed a State of the Union address by an American president, represented his effort to grab back momentum after a period in which he replaced a discredited predecessor, Liz Truss, and mopped up after her calamitous foray into trickle-down economics.“No tricks, no ambiguity,” Mr. Sunak said to a polite audience in East London. “We’re either delivering for you or we’re not.”Among the promises, the prime minister said he would cut inflation in half, reignite the economy and reduce waiting times in emergency rooms — ambitious goals for a government that has so far been largely a hostage to a series of disruptive events.But some of Britain’s most pressing problems, like its overwhelmed and investment-starved National Health System, defy easy solutions. Even with more funding, Mr. Sunak said, “people are waiting too long for the care they need,” citing the ambulances lining up in front of hospitals that are short of beds for patients.Budget strains and a cost-of-living crisis have triggered widespread labor unrest, with nurses walking off hospital wards and railway workers shutting down trains. The government is expected to announce new anti-strike legislation, but Mr. Sunak conceded the difficulty of making deals with multiple unions, even though polls show Britons generally support the workers.“I don’t think anybody thinks a 19 percent pay rise is affordable,” he said of the nurses’ wage demands.A crowded King’s Cross station in London last week. Industrial actions by railway workers disrupted travel over the holidays.Hollie Adams/Getty ImagesBeyond that, the British economy is also likely to deteriorate further before it bottoms out and begins to recover. Mr. Sunak acknowledged that sobering reality, noting that many Britons were looking ahead to 2023 with “apprehension.”For Mr. Sunak, who has come under criticism for his below-the-radar style, the speech was an effort to offer much-needed reassurance and to present an image of a sturdy leader at the helm. With two years to go before he must call an election, he billed his five promises — which also included cutting public debt and stopping the perilous flow of migrant boats across the English Channel — as yardsticks with which to judge his government.Understand the Political Situation in BritainA Political Test: Rishi Sunak, who took over as prime minister with the hope of restoring stability to a government in turmoil, is facing formidable political and economic challenges.Worker Strikes: Crippling strikes across multiple industries have Britain’s Conservative government facing a “winter of discontent,” just as a Labour government did 44 years ago.Migrant Crossings: Under growing pressure to curb the arrival of migrants in small boats on the English coast, Mr. Sunak announced plans to tackle Britain’s backlog in asylum claims and to fast-track the return of most Albanians seeking refugee status.Selling Austerity: With an elite pedigree and a privileged lifestyle, Mr. Sunak must now persuade ordinary Britons that they should support his government through a painful ordeal of tax increases and spending cuts.Eschewing the ideological extremism of Ms. Truss or the have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too optimism of her predecessor, Boris Johnson, Mr. Sunak struck a nuts-and-bolts tone. Characteristically, his most widely promoted initiative was a plan for all school children to study mathematics until the age of 18.“One of the biggest changes in mind-set we need in education today is to reimagine our approach to numeracy,” said Mr. Sunak, a line that would have been unlikely to turn up in a speech by Mr. Johnson.Still, some experts said there was less to some of Mr. Sunak’s promises than met the eye. The Bank of England has already projected that the inflation rate, currently 10.1 percent, will decline to roughly half that by the end of 2023. That downward trend, in any event, has less to do with fiscal than monetary policy.Mr. Sunak’s pledge to “grow the economy” by the end of the year was noteworthy, given that it is now likely shrinking. But he offered few prescriptions for how the government planned to do that. Britain has struggled with lackluster productivity and stagnant growth for more than a decade.Shopping for groceries in London last November, when inflation hit a record 12.4 percent.Andy Rain/EPA, via Shutterstock“Growth will return, almost certainly in the next year or so, but that’s a very low bar,” said Jonathan Portes, a professor of economics and public policy at Kings College London. “I would point out that Truss set an explicit growth target of 2.5 percent, so Sunak is being much less ambitious.”Mr. Sunak, a 42-year-old onetime investment banker who served as chancellor of the Exchequer under Mr. Johnson, faces a huge task improving public services. The N.H.S., one of Britain’s most revered institutions, suffered during years of austerity under Conservative-led governments, and was then battered by the pandemic.Jill Rutter, a senior fellow at the Institute for Government, a London-based research institute, said that by the time of the next general election, Mr. Sunak will need to be able to show the British public that things were improving and that it would therefore be a risk to eject him from power.“Most public services were looking pretty fragile at the time of the pandemic, and the pandemic then piled problems on top of them, including big treatment backlogs in health and exhaustion among the work force” Ms. Rutter said. Those problems, she said, were “compounded by inflation and a big squeeze on public sector pay.’’Most of these underlying weaknesses will remain, even if the government resolves the pay dispute with nurses and ambulance drivers. “Even if Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt write a big check to the National Health Service, that doesn’t solve the capacity problem quickly,” she said, referring to the current chancellor.Similarly, Mr. Sunak has a limited number of options for reviving the economy even if inflation tapers off and interest rates stop rising. Last fall, Mr. Hunt reversed the tax cuts announced by Ms. Truss, replacing them with a raft of tax increases and spending cuts. The reversal restored Britain’s tarnished reputation in financial markets, but at a cost to economic activity at home.Nurses striking outside St. Thomas’ hospital in London last month. Kin Cheung/Associated PressMr. Sunak also needs to manage divisions within his fractious Conservative Party, while knowing that Mr. Johnson harbors ambitions to return to Downing Street, if given the opportunity.“One of the problems for Sunak is that his party is so all over the place that, on a whole range of issues, if he goes one way, he’ll alienate a bunch of them and if he goes another, he’ll alienate another bunch,” Ms. Rutter said.Any attempt to solve labor shortages by relaxing immigration rules, for example, would prompt opposition from a right-wing faction within the Conservative Party, as could any compromise with the European Union over post-Brexit trade rules for Northern Ireland.One of Mr. Sunak’s most immediate challenges is cutting down the flotilla of small boats carrying asylum seekers across the channel. On Wednesday, he pledged new laws that would stop the crossings, but provided neither a timetable nor evidence of how deporting illegal migrants would stop the influx.By sketching out his priorities for the next year, however, Mr. Sunak will hope to quiet critics who claimed that he has stayed out of the spotlight as alarm spread over the state of the health service, and as the latest wave of strikes paralyzed parts of the country.The leader of the opposition Labour Party, Keir Starmer, was scheduled to make a speech on his agenda on Thursday. Mr. Sunak’s hastily scheduled appearance prevented his rival from exploiting a political vacuum to build on Labour’s polling lead over the Conservatives, now more than 20 percentage points.Like Mr. Sunak, Mr. Starmer is regarded as an uninspiring public speaker. His critics accuse him of excessive caution and of failing to articulate how he would change the country as prime minister.For Mr. Sunak, the challenge is more immediate but no less daunting: convince skeptics that he measures up to the job of prime minister at a time of converging crises. More