The Labour government have announced a U-turn on winter fuel payment cuts. Pondering over Sir Keir’s leadership of Labour and now his current premiership, I’ve noticed that he is fighting a battle which I feel is being overlooked. What I currently find is that there is a polarising divide for politicians where they seem to try and find a balance between technocracy and populism.
What do I mean by these terms? Well, for us political nerds, I think we all know what populist politics is. It can come in many forms, from the Corbyn era to the MAGA movement, it is there to serve as an alternative to the status quo of politics. More than just a technical opposition in parliament, populists aim to change the system altogether. What do I mean by technocracy? Well, that is what I would define as the ‘establishment’. Politicians and civil servants who create legislation and policy that makes minimal change to the institutions.
Looking at the government, the Prime Minister is a technocrat at heart. A pragmatist. What I have learned, being a former Labour member under his leadership, is that ideology is not what he is interested in. He cares about details and prides himself on preservation of institutions. That has been Labour’s weakness since their election victory in 2024; Labour campaigned on ‘change’ but have shown through their actions that there will be no meaningful change. For example, a key educational policy in their 2024 manifesto is to recruit 6,500 teachers. That sounds like a lot; however, figures have shown that in both 2021/22 and 2022/23, nearly 40,000 teachers left the profession. 6,500 new teachers will not solve the retention crisis of school staff.
Labour can point to raising wages, which I support, but that policy alone does not solve poverty or wealth inequality. In my personal position, the wage rise only amounted to me having roughly £6 extra onto my day rates in one of my jobs. I don’t live in poverty but as a working-class person, that policy hasn’t eased the financial pressures we all face.
Looking at the numbers, I understand why Labour made their decision of the winter fuel cuts. There are plenty of pensioners that, in my view, were going to suffer as a direct result of the policy and be pushed into poverty. However, there are pensioners that were receiving the payment when they were quite well off. Rory Stewart recently spoke of how his mother received the payment when she didn’t need to. With an ageing population, the winter fuel payment is extremely costly to the taxpayer. This is the technocratic argument.
The populist argument hits at the emotions, the proposed morality. The Labour Party, supposedly socialist and for the working people, taking money away from the most vulnerable. Pensioners who have worked so hard for all their adult lives, forced into a choice between heating and food. Is that how they should be rewarded? The populist argument.
The question for us Liberal Democrats is where do we find our place in this current political battle? We know Labour are on the technocratic side. We know the Conservatives and Reform UK are on the populist side. What about us? In my view, a populist campaign is much better than a technocratic one. It speaks to the feelings of the voters; it pulls at their heartstrings. Divisive but effective. Although, a populist in office? It’s a risky move. Look at US President Trump and the disasters he has caused in the US and abroad.
In my opinion, our best bet of getting back into government is in a coalition with Labour. The Tories and Reform seem to be so far away from our values that it would be impossible to work with them. Hypothetically, if we keep roughly the same amount of MP’s after the 2029 election and Labour make some modest losses which results in a hung parliament; we could become kingmakers.
While I respect that the Labour government are trying to do the right thing (in some areas) I feel that their weakness is that they are still in a Westminster bubble. They will claim that the economy would be working well for the average person if GDP goes up by 0. whatever percent. However, voters will only decide if the economy is working if they feel they have more money in their wallets.
A coalition with Labour is our gateway to making effective change to the country. We could be the populists to the technocrats from Labour. Whether that is changing our election systems, expanding civil liberties, real devolution to local government and reform to our care services. Good Liberal ideas that can become reality.
* Jim Coupland is a member of the Liberal Democrats who joined us from the Labour Party. He describes himself as a "passionate Liberal".
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Labour councillor missing in action
New NHS cash will be wasted if social care is left untouched
Prince William's billionaire pal dies after swallowing bee while playing polo
Transition Dundee Ceilidh #dundeewestend
The Trinity made comprehensible.
A remarkable woman and a park
Lib Dems in the King's birthday honours 2025
Andy Daer
Simon R
John Waller
Geoffrey Payne
5 Comments
‘the winter fuel payment is extremely costly to the taxpayer’
In the scheme of things it really isn’t. So much pain for so little gain. The WFA savings will be minimal. It was a political choice. £15 billion to Ukraine by the end of this parliament. Billions a year housing asylum seekers currently arriving at a 1000+ a week. British homeless line the streets, & pensioners denied the WFA.
Political choices.
I’m not sure I like the idea of being ‘populists’ – with all the connotations of simplistic solutions that don’t actually work. So I’d prefer to think of the distinction as ‘visionary’ vs ‘technocratic’. Your analysis seems right to me – Starmer is basically a technocrat who seems to lack the vision that is needed to both inspire people and to lead the country to somewhere fundamentally better. In that respect he’s not that much different from Sunak – who was also basically a technocrat. The challenge then is for us to combine the visionary and the technocratic – because in reality, both are important. The vision to see a better way of doing things, and the analytical and managerial skills to make sure that the policies we are devising are actually going to work – which I think has tended to be our weak point the last few years. I don’t think we should be going exclusively for one or the other, although the vision is certainly the most important when it comes to running a general election campaign.
I like your analysis, and I think you’re right. Our best chance of getting back into government is in partnership with Labour.
I would not use the word technocracy, at least not in quite the same way as you do. Technocracy implies that these people are technical experts; while sometimes true, too many of our technocrats lack the intellect, temperament, or vision to understand either their place in the economy or their responsibility to wider society.
Let’s call these people – the people who manage companies on behalf of the absentee owners of these assets – the ‘managerial class’ instead. The political problem – the circle which must be squared if we are to halt the rise of populism – is that we need a managerial class to run things, but legitimacy flows from the populace as a whole.
The social contract, which bestows legitimacy on our leaders, rests on an economic settlement. Growing wealth inequality increasingly reveals the threadbare nature of the economic settlement. More than that, it reduces accountability, which is ultimately corrosive to the social contract.
If we were to get back into power, in partnership with Labour, the Lib Dems would need a visionary economic policy to deliver a new economic settlement, address the grievances of the working classes and defang populism, because it certainly isn’t coming from Labour.
Hold your horses! Some of us are old enough to remember going into partnership with Labour in the LibLab pact – where they shafted us on PR for European elections, the Ashdown/Blair agreement – where we were shafted on PR and English devolution. In short we cannot trust Labour to stand by any agreement they make. Not to forget that despite AV being Labour policy they campaigned against it in the referendum just because we agreed it with the Tories, or indeed because we had the temerity to go into coalition with the Tories, when Labour have always regarded us as Labour mark 2.
We have to frame the bext election as being between us and reform and then convince Labour and Green voters to support us to keep Reform out. Camapign to win, not campaign for a coalition.
@Mick Taylor – I see your point, however, we have to move on from past grudges. The “campaign to win” argument is fantastical and, with all respect and not meaning to offend, slightly short sighted. Simply keeping Reform out of office is not a ‘win’ for the country.
I would LOVE a Liberal government but it’s not going to happen! Not with First Past The Post. The only way we can ‘win’ is by going into a coalition and getting into Downing Street. Like I mentioned in my op-ed, the Tories and Reform are not going to be an option for us considering our obvious differences. Labour are the only party who we could credibly work with to get some Liberal policy into legislation.
Clegg’s mistake was that he did not use his leverage. Being the ‘kingmaker’, you are the glue of the government. Yes, you can help a larger party have a majority but if promises are not kept, you can leave.
The past is the past, we need to look forward.