Lots of change but little progress in Spring Statement

“I am impatient for change, the British people are impatient for change…”

This was the complaint heard from Rachel Reeves after getting slow service at the checkout. No, not really.

The Chancellor finished last week’s Spring Statement with this remark. The plea echoes the language of a command paper presented to Parliament by the Prime Minister at the end of last year, titled “Plan for Change: Milestones for mission-led government”.

Our chief executive Sarah has written about mission-led government, outlining some skepticism that this approach can deliver without also fundamentally reforming how government works.

Usually, I have little to add to Sarah’s expert views. But I am interested in the politics and communication of change.

In the 2008 book Alpha Dogs by James Harding, the author charts the rise of a new breed of political campaigners who had their teeth cut in American politics. One section comes to mind:

“There are essentially two basic strategies in a democratic election between an incumbent and a challenger. The challenger’s gambit: “It’s time for a change”. The incumbent’s defense: “Trust what you know”. In the United States, William McKinley, FDR and Ronald Reagan all swept to power on the promise of change; Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, LBJ, and George W Bush, stirring fears of change in difficult times….

….In 1992, the Conservative party in the United Kingdom played to popular fears of change, scaring voters with the threat of “Labour’s Tax Bombshell.” At the next general election, Tony Blair’s Labour Party appealed to the British people’s yearning for change, its campaign song being the peppy “Things can only get better.”   

Change was the obvious strategy for Starmer’s Labour. Don’t believe me? Here’s a quote from the now Prime Minister in the  Labour party’s manifesto:

“This election is about change. A chance to stop the endless Conservative chaos that has directly harmed the finances of every family in Britain.”   And it worked. Last year, the Labour party swept to power, promising “a rebuilding of our country.”

The only thing is (and I stress my lack of construction expertise but would point to the Glasgow School of Art) rebuilding takes time.

At Carnegie UK, we’re interested in long-termism in public policy – recognising that many the biggest challenges of our time might take a long time to fix. That’s why we’ve looked closely at Wales’ Future Generations Commissioner and policy frameworks that are designed to survive a change in government.

But you could argue that electorates (and financial markets) aren’t as keen on the long-term. If I can’t – for example – get my foot surgery when my foot needs it, I don’t really care about the government’s great plan for foot surgeon development.

And the larger challenge might be that working for long-term success might be indiscernible to no progress at all for your average voter.  That’s why I’ve got an interest in the concept of double-running, a phrase I heard uttered by Health Secretary Wes Streeting in reference to NHS England.

The Institute for Government define double running as “increasing funding for prevention and capital, while maintaining spending on acute services – to kick-start the recovery across public services.”

For those impatient for change but keen for a long-term impact, this seems like the right approach.

The challenge might be paying for it, especially in areas less politically important than the NHS, like the justice system.

Our Financing the Future programme is currently exploring related issues about how we might lay the financial groundwork for a more successful and sustainable tomorrow.

And while new financial systems may be part of the solution, our political class may also want to update their campaigns to focus more on progress and less on change alone.