Unlock free Digest editor
Roula Khalaf, editor of FT, chooses her favorite story in this weekly newsletter.
Boris Johnson won the Brexit campaign and the general election not because he knew how to manage, but because he knew how to entertain. If the current government fails, will the successor be a better government or a populist party? My bet is on another, with possible long-term results, as is the case in the US.
Maybe it’s too late. But we should try to prevent this outcome. If we want it, we have to start with what is happening now in the UK. The Starmer Management has good intentions. But it was terribly awkward for the government. Part of the explanation was such a long period of opposition. The government is inexperienced very inexperienced, as it was true in 1997 and 2010. But there is a further limit: the oppositions are chronically funded. They are supported not as governments in waiting, but as small private organizations trying to win the elections. But these small organizations will, if selected, have to provide a direction of a complex state that, in the case of the UK, consumes more than 40 percent of GDP -A provides all the frames within which the Earth operates. It is a huge responsibility for which they are unprepared, both individually and institutional. This, no doubt, is why governments start acting like rabbits in the headlights, whether they are postponed too long to decide what to do or jump too fast on poorly informed decisions.
This is not a critique of democracy in itself. Yes, there are many failures. But none of them are as great as those despotism. However, we must recognize that oppositions need great help if they want to prepare for the tasks to deal with. They have to understand the problems that they now face with their countries. They have to elaborate on reforms that could deal with these problems. Not the least important, they need to know how to turn aspirations into politics, legislation and institutional changes.
Part of the solution must be for politics to become a more attractive career for capable people. More, As I claimed elsewhereis to bring ordinary people to discussions, through assemblies of citizens. But it is also vital that opposition have the resources they need to produce politics in advance, from ideas to implementation, while in opposition. Without this, they will be roughly unprepared. Then they take them too long and popularity is taken away because changes come too late.
What is needed then is a great public support in accordance with the reality that the political party is the main institution of government. Its vitality is public. Even the parties that disagree with that are part of this good, because healthy competition is what democracy does.
There are two risks with relying on private money: insufficient resources and corruption. The first would be smaller if the British Think-ttaks had resources of us. But they will never and never. Furthermore, the priorities of Think-Ttaks depend on those rich and powerful donors. They can be in line with the right priorities. But that cannot be guaranteed.
So, we should create means to opposition on the ladder sufficient to invent and create politics and elaborate many implementation problems, before we come to power. This would improve the quality of public debate and management, which our democracy was more effective. Today, support is simply too limited. Thus, financial assistance to the opposition parties “do your parliamentary job” in the House of Municipality (so -called “”Short money“) It was placed at only £ 11.1 million for all opposition parties for 2024-25, and the Labor only received £ 6.8 million. Opposition parties may also have Access to civil servants In progress to the choice. But that is not enough.
I see three possible improvements. One is to create an opposition department that has civil servants and external experts, designed to help the opposition form their proposals. The objection is yes This would undermine the impartiality of the civil service. It is also not clear what to do with more opposition parties. Another option would be a publicly funded party Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, and Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung and others. The third would be funded by parties to greatly promote research and development of policies.
The most powerful complaint is that the only focus of opposition is in fact to win. If the pursuit of power is considered to be inignant to develop and discuss the politics of thinking, the latter will always be abandoned. This, unfortunately, is perfectly possible. Indeed, it seems more and more convincing in today’s politics. But the result will be a persistently bad government. The winning elections are not enough. Democracy must also provide decent management.
