A conservative government that has been in power for too long, marked by corruption, without new ideas; some Tories involved in a fratricidal war after getting rid of their leader; a deep economic crisis; a Labor leader who moves away from socialism and places himself in the center; a country that seems open to a change of cycle... 2022? Yes, but also 1992, two years after the fall of Margaret Thatcher.
And what happened then? That Labour, despite having led the Conservatives by a huge lead in the polls, did not finish the job. John Major, surprising heir to the Iron Lady crown, clearly defeated the moderate Neil Kinnock, with almost 13 million votes and 319 seats (absolute majority of 21). At the moment of truth, the voters decided to give it a chance, as if the blood spilled by Thatcher had been enough and the gods of politics required no more sacrifices. Will the same thing happen again in 2024?
It is the precedent, not so distant, in which the Tories have pinned their hopes. That the anger of the electorate is more towards Boris Johnson, for the excessive licenses that he allowed himself, than towards the party. And that, with Liz Truss (probably) at the helm, they see it as a renewed brand, like when a soft drink changes its packaging or adds or removes a bit of sugar from the product so that it tastes a little different. The polls encourage this thesis, placing Labor's advantage at just three or four points, insufficient to govern alone and leaving them in the hands of the Scottish nationalists (who would demand a new independence referendum) and the Liberal Democrats (who would ask for a proportional representation) to form a coalition. What conservatives apocalyptically call "the coalition of chaos."
The Keir Starmer thing with British voters is like those Hollywood romantic comedies where there's no chemistry between the leads, he's a nice guy, but she wants someone with more charisma. Something that the leader of Labor, former attorney general, does not spare. Prudence, on the other hand, has too much even for most of the group's militants. Brexit is a "closed" issue (for fear of angering former voters in the north of England who are eurosceptic and have gone over to Johnson), so is the return to the single market and the customs union. Taboo subject. But neither does it offer palliatives – let alone original solutions – for inflation, the cost of energy and the recession that are coming, limiting itself to criticizing the conservative candidates, Truss and Sunak.
It has ruled out nationalizing the energy companies, it does not dare touch the chaotic public health reform (6.6 million people are waiting for operations, some for more than two years), it has no plan for the care of the elderly or to resolve dependence on foreign oil and gas. He does not say whether or not he would invest in infrastructure, how he would help the poor who have to choose between eating or heating their houses, and whether he would build affordable housing for young people; it lacks a strategy to stimulate investment and improve productivity, it remains silent about queues to go to the emergency room, renew passports and driving licences, catch a plane or go to France in the car. He dares not suggest that he will raise taxes to improve pathetic public services, because they are already the highest in seventy years, nor promise that he will dismantle the cruel immigration policy of the Tories, nor admit that the country needs foreign labor to stimulate the economy. and pay pensions. About the strikes of railway employees, postmen, doctors, nurses and lawyers, he does not get wet. He considers them "understandable", but does not support them, and tries that their leaders do not participate in the pickets (the person in charge of transportation has been dismissed for taking part in one).
His tactic is to attribute the collapse of a crumbling country to the intellectual, moral and political failure of 12 years of conservative rule and its austerity policies. But, when the financial crisis of 2008, the Tories managed to convince the electorate that the fault was not their neoliberal philosophy, but the excessive spending of a spendthrift Labour. Starmer hopes that people place the beginning of the decline in the arrival of Cameron, and not Blair 25 years ago. And that it is enough for him to take the rudder towards the center. Or will history repeat itself and be a new Kinnock?
