David Blunkett: ‘The first year is always hit and miss. But we now need fast transformation, not tinkering’

The first year of any new government is bound to be hit and miss. Not just because new and often inexperienced people are entering unfamiliar political terrain, but because they’re having to clear up the mess from the previous administration.

In Labour’s case, 14 years of mayhem: the austerity years of the coalition and many of the major mistakes that were made at the time when borrowing for capital investment could have been undertaken at interest rates over 30 years at about 0.5% – just think where we could have been now in terms of our infrastructure and resilience?

Then, the five years from 2019. Not only the 49 days of Liz Truss and all the implications of this, but the chaos of Boris, the mishandling (despite the propaganda) of covid, and the billions of pounds of waste – some of it corruptly.

A mixed bag of a first year

That said, the last 12 months has really been a mixed bag. Due to the turmoil, musical chairs and instability of the period running up to the general election, the civil service could be forgiven for feeling beleaguered having attempted to take control of events when multiple changes in ministerial office left them rudderless.

However, that does put incoming ministers in a bind. They have to be extraordinarily clear as to what they want from their officials, not just about direction, but how things should implemented, and therefore the delivery mechanism.

Unlike (forgive me), 1997, a lot was said about “policy” having been “done” leading up to last year’s general election. Sadly, whoever briefed this was somewhat out of touch with the reality of the difference between vague overview, and actual detailed policy.

READ MORE: ‘One year on, Labour still hasn’t reckoned with collapsing trust in politics’

This, as we have seen, leads to the civil service drawing down their files from dusty shelves, and re-presenting to incoming ministers. The consequences can be politically devastating as well as embarrassing.

Yet the last six months and since January have seen a substantial change in both the confidence and competence of the new government. On foreign policy in particular, ranging from defence and security through to trade agreements, the government have grown in stature and Keir Starmer, as Prime Minister, has played an important part on the international stage – raising Britain’s reputation, as well as his own.

Home and abroad

So, my message is very clear for the year ahead and beyond. Given the international turmoil we face, the genuine dangers and instability, the government is bound to have to concentrate on global matters. This means the Prime Minister’s attention is inevitably focused on these key and immediate threats.

Nevertheless – and it is a very big flag – it is vital that the same focused attention is now placed on domestic issues. You can lose votes and popularity on issues relating to our relations with the rest of the world, but you can rarely win them.

For instance, we now have an Industrial Strategy, but we don’t yet have a comprehensive Skills Strategy. The final board membership for Skills England was not announced until the end of May – 11 months in from the election of the government.

What happened last week in the deeply damaging welfare reform saga reminded me of the words I used in my New Year thoughts for LabourList back in January. Namely, that with such a large majority, we had many excellent MPs whose talents we needed to use;, whose frustrations we need to understand, and whose time we needed to apply effectively.

READ MORE: Which ministers have done the most and fewest broadcast rounds in year one?

There will always be those who find government almost impossible to take, but the majority of Labour MPs want the government to succeed, want to be re-elected, and, above all, want to deliver for the British people.

Also, watch out for government consultations which seem to be of a technical nature. Such as on local government finance, distribution and the consolidation of central government funding. Get this wrong, and government promises to deliver come to nothing. No one is clear where the money has been allocated, who’s accountable for spending it or any kind of meaningful monitoring of what’s been delivered.

It is here at home, the experience of people in their own lives, in their neighbourhood and the wider community that transforms bubbling along ahead of the Tories but behind Reform UK, into a winning formula in three and a half years’ time.

‘This must be transformational’

That means being totally decisive. What Neil Kinnock recently described as the “audacity deficit”. Not shock and awe for its own sake, but the avoidance of tinkering and half-hearted measures that satisfy no-one. Not vague promises with extended timetables for delivery, but clear instructions at every level to every civil servant or outside agency to simply get on with it.

This must be transformational. If it’s not, then our government will be responsible for the unthinkable. The elevation of Nigel Farage, the potential coalescing of Reform UK with the Conservatives, and the fragmented centre-left finding itself outwitted and out of office.

It is in no way to be dismissive or disloyal to excellent and highly competent colleagues to say that everything, so far, has been too slow.

READ MORE: Women’s toilets and paternity leave: New MPs shake up Commons life

Well, not quite. As I say, action abroad and intervention – for instance, in at least temporarily saving the steel works in Scunthorpe – are examples of that decisiveness. Decisions taken recently on infrastructure spending are long overdue for our country, and extremely welcome.

Yet, good as they are, they are medium and long term. Necessary for our country, but unlikely to have the kind of impact the changes people’s voting habits.

Which is why every Secretary of State should be wary of ceding power to someone else, important as decentralisation and devolvement might be. I was once in a meeting with Gordon Brown when the then-US Labor Secretary, Robert Reich, was talking about the introduction – back in ’97 – of tax credits. The problem, said Robert, was: “the government never get the credit for the tax credit.”

Getting credit for what you do entails having a handle on where the resources are going, who is accountable for delivering, or not; and who is actually getting the benefit.

If you don’t get that right, you don’t get the politics right. It is, to misquote President Bill Clinton, “politics, stupid”.

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of all things Labour – and follow us on  Bluesky, WhatsApp, Threads, X or Facebook.

• SHARE: If you have anything to share that we should be looking into or publishing about this story – or any other topic involving Labour– contact us (strictly anonymously if you wish) at [email protected].
• SUBSCRIBE: Sign up to LabourList’s morning email here for the best briefing on everything Labour, every weekday morning.
• DONATE: If you value our work, please chip in a few pounds a week and become one of our supporters, helping sustain and expand our coverage.
• PARTNER: If you or your organisation might be interested in partnering with us on sponsored events or projects, email [email protected].
• ADVERTISE: If your organisation would like to advertise or run sponsored pieces on LabourList‘s daily newsletter or website, contact our exclusive ad partners Total Politics at [email protected].