Election Nonsense

May's elections have little to do with Gaza, nuclear weapons or the Prime Minister.

There is a perverse oddness about local government elections in the United Kingdom; much of the pre-election discussion is about national issues that, by definition, lie beyond the jurisdiction of a district or county council, the Senedd or Holyrood. When not sacking senior civil servants or misinforming Parliament, our Prime Minister has been proclaiming that he has prevented the UK from becoming part of someone else’s war, by which he means the US and Israeli strikes on Iran and its proxies. His actual words were, “This war is not ours to fight. We will avoid being pulled into the conflict, as it does not align with our national interest.” Starmer lives in a parallel universe.

For a start, we were never invited to fight in it. As subsequent events have shown, we don’t have much of a navy. We have a bit of an air force, although our jets use a different air-to-air refuelling system to the US and Israeli ones. Our Typhoons aren’t particularly stealthy, and our F-35Bs must carry ASRAAM air-to-air missiles externally, which degrades their stealth too. (ASRAAM isn’t cleared to be carried in the F-35B weapons bay, which is smaller than the one on the F-35A and F-35C. Long story; another article for another day.) As there is no intention to put troops on the ground, what’s left of our (now mediocre at best) Army wasn’t needed. The remaining excellent bit, our Special Forces, daren’t go lest Lord Hermer sues them for doing their job. Starmer’s first sentence was misleading. At best. As usual.

In fact Starmer (and Hermer and Miliband) sabotaged the initial American strikes by refusing them access to Diego Garcia and Fairford. That meant much longer flights for B2 stealth bombers, which in turn will have lowered their availability and prolonged the initial phases. If anything, Starmer put us in the war on the Iranian side, perhaps proving that only losers support losers. Rather than announce this as his decision, he hid behind Hermer’s interpretation of human rights law, which he claimed constrained his actions as prime minister. (They didn’t last year). Remember that if and when President Trump raises tariffs payable by UK exporters. In the light of Starmer’s betrayal of the United States, why wouldn’t he approve arms sales to Argentina and make mischief in the Falklands?

In any case, we have been peripherally pulled into the conflict as our other allies in the Gulf need help shooting drones. Worse, the ungrateful Iranians struck Cyprus, which it seems was undefended. The net result was a rush of jets, helicopters, missiles and (eventually) HMS Dragon to provide air defence (and work for the local shipyards).

Then came the blocking of the Straits of Hormuz – an entirely predictable Iranian retaliation to complete military overmatch. While the UK economy is not much fuelled from the Gulf, the world is. Oil and gas prices have risen dramatically and that is causing economic hardship in the UK, as I see every day when I fill up my truck and watch what would have been my pay rise head for oil company and Treasury coffers.

Penury is not generally thought to be in the national interest, although it’s the inevitable consequence of Reeves in No. 11 and socialism more widely. The Iran conflict is hurting our allies and interests in the Gulf, driving up energy prices which feeds into inflation. That’s hurting the UK economy already and it will get worse. The Iran war affects the UK; it’s not some peripheral thing. We have no influence in its prosecution due to a lack of military power exacerbated by Starmer’s folly in refusing the US the support it needed and, based on previous actions, expected. The Labour Party’s dislike of Israel, recognition of the Palestinian state and what passes for Starmer’s diplomacy have actually turned the UK into a mere spectator in a conflict that is shaping the UK’s economic performance for the next few years.

Politicians all know the Clinton electoral maxim “It’s the economy, stupid.” Starmer’s actions have materially damaged our economy, thereby worsening Labour’s already parlous electoral state (itself largely caused by believing in socialism and net zero). Labour needs to find votes elsewhere. Where better to get them than the Palestinian-supporting electoral niche, many of whom are Muslim? Hence the “not our war” lie.

Of course, Starmer’s Labour is not the only progressive party to have worked this out, or to be suffering from a belief in climate activism, net zero and (above all) socialism as a path to economic security. Thus, the Greens, the SNP, and Plaid Cymru are all pro-Palestinian. Some boroughs have what is effectively the Gaza Supporters Party (appellations vary and there are some independents too) running for a district or council predominantly on a pro-Palestinian ticket, despite the fact that no local government can do anything about Palestine. That doesn’t stop local politicians debating it, wasting time and public funds that would be better spent collecting rubbish or filling pot holes.

Ken Livingston’s Greater London Council (GLC) was the same. It declared London a “nuclear free zone” (whatever that meant) and neatly scooped up the anti-nuclear vote, which was substantial back then and was drawn far wider than the Labour Party. His pronouncements and waste of council time on the nuclear weapons debate so infuriated Margaret Thatcher that she abolished the GLC in 1986.

Although the GLC’s abolition didn’t much harm London residents, fifteen years later Blair resurrected it as the Greater London Authority, shortly before he created the Senedd and Holyrood. The Scots, Welsh and Londoners haven’t seen much of an increase in the quality of the services they pay for since the creation of these talking shops; vanishingly few problems are solved by creating more politics.

As Firorello La Guardia, (mayor of New York 1934-45), said, “There ain’t no Democratic or Republican way of sweeping the streets” – so why do political parties get involved in local government in the first place? In theory, it would be perfectly possible, reasonable, and logical to run for a town, borough, district, or county council and elections with no political branding. Local people would stand as individuals and the electorate would select the ones they thought most likely to spend the rates wisely. Indeed, some 10% of councillors are independent, and 35 of the UK’s 370 or so councils have independents as a leader.

There is no evidence on whether they are better or worse run than those under party control. There is no great agreement on how to measure “well run” either, nor indeed much in the way of correlation between a party’s performance running councils and their performance running Westminster. The relationship between central and local government is messily complex, not least in the calculation of central government block funding for the devolved administrations under the Barnet formula, which was introduced in 1978 as a one-off calculation prior to the 1979 devolution elections. As Milton Friedman said, there is nothing so permanent as a temporary measure (see also income tax and comprehensive schools).

What is clear is that a government machine that stretches from town halls to Westminster is poorly supervised by politicians at every level. (If you disagree, book a GP appointment, count potholes and look at education outcomes). For all the vast sums that central and local governments spend, little is achieved, and those elected to oversee it fail. In central government the national debt rises; in local government infrastructure crumbles (local government borrowing being more constrained). Either way the taxpayer is not getting value for money. Politicians are failing.

That’s unsurprising; most of them have little experience of the world of commerce. Far too many flit from university to quango to political activism to being elected. They owe their income to their party and they know to toe the ideological line. This will be especially true in the next Senedd, whose members come from a closed list with the party dictating who is on the list and in what order. Resigning from a party means leaving the Senedd, losing one’s pay, free house in Cardiff and personal staff. There’s no by-election; the next on the list steps up immediately and automatically. Don’t expect many resignations on principle in Cardiff Bay in the next five years.

For all the hyperbole, the elections are unlikely to change much unless Reform wins an outright majority in Holyrood or the Senedd (or both). That’s now a long shot, which means that the most likely outcome is a continuation of the rule of the progressives, with the concomitant further decline in living standards and efficiency. That being so, many will ask what the purpose of the elections is. They’ll ask even louder if they see money that should be fixing roads, schools and hospitals going to promoting Palestinian causes or furthering diversity. They won’t get an answer though.

The governance of the United Kingdom is failing at every level and in every way. While the parties blame each other, often in a manner that would be considered infantile in a primary school, the national debt rises, growth diminishes and politicians fail to deliver on their manifestos. Our government is rotting from the top and Starmer is the epitome of all that is wrong. Should the much-anticipated Labour electoral collapse materialise, many think and hope that he will be forced out.

Labour leadership selection is complex and time consuming. Should Starmer resign the Deputy Prime Minister would step up. That’s David Lammy. Be careful what you wish for.

---

If you enjoyed this article please remember that Views From My Cab is a reader-supported publication and subscribe, which costs you nothing but makes the SubStack bots more helpful.

Alternatively you could make a small, one off donation to defray my production costs. I am hugely grateful for every donation. The simplest method is via Buy Me a Coffee.

Buy Me a Coffee