“If Sir Keir [Starmer] can improve Britain’s chronic low productivity and raise the efficiency of the British state, then he may offer a lesson to centrists elsewhere: not just how to win power, but how to use it. It starts by him seizing the moment.” – Economist

AFTER 14 years of chaotic governance; a revolving door of prime ministers; often gross incompetence; a host of economic problems such as the aftermath of Brexit, COVID-19, and the Liz Truss budget disaster; and various dysfunction, the British electorate ejected the Conservatives from office.

In contrast to the United States and France, it has been a relief to watch the pageant of democracy in the United Kingdom: a seamless, quick, peaceful transfer of power, resulting in a party with a mandate for change that will not be hobbled by gridlock.

As is typically the case, the vote was more a referendum on the Tories and less an embrace of Labour. The lower voter turnout suggested that many voters are not enamored by either major party, and desperately sick of the hypocrisy and immature politics of the day.

Still, there was a pent-up  desire for change that benefitted Labour, punishing the Conservatives for their smugness, carnival of pratfalls, and major blunders. As in other countries, the entrenched cost of living crisis was bound to hurt the incumbents.

What Sir Keir Starmer accomplished should not be underestimated. Elections in the United Kingdom are typically won from the centre. Sir Keir had to make his party appear responsible, especially on the economy, and moderate.

After former leader, Jeremy Corbyn dragged Labour too far left, Starmer, like Neil Kinnock and Tony Blair before him, had to reset Labour as a centrist party that could capture votes across the political spectrum.

Starmer did something else as profound while in opposition. He meticulously prepared Labour for governance. He hired the civil service mandarin, Sue Gray, a former Permanent Secretary in the Cabinet Office, as Chief of Staff to the Leader of the Opposition. A part of her remit was to prepare a plan for governance.

Such planning is typical in the UK, and should be normative in a Westminster-based system such as ours. Gray and her team reportedly engage in detailed planning. She now serves as one of Sir Keir’s key advisers in Downing Street. Expertise makes an enormous difference in governance.

We cannot breezily compare ourselves to the UK, especially given our size and less access to talent. However, there are significant lessons which both major parties endlessly and flippantly refuse to learn.

Leaders in The Bahamas often allow their parties to atrophy while in office. They do not prepare more detailed plans for their first year in office, succumbing instead to the gimmicky PR talk of the “First Hundred Days”.

The FNM has tended to have more detailed manifestoes than the PLP. Though few voters pay attention to these documents, they may prove pivotal if they serve as part of a broader and more detailed plan to govern and to deliver election promises.

The last prime minister to have such a programme of governance was Hubert Ingraham, who had his own Sue Gray, in the person of former permanent secretary and senior policy advisor, Teresa Butler. Since then, the policy advisor role has morphed into an advisor who mostly vets foreign direct investments.

Sadly, recent governments have been woefully unserious about policy formulation because most of our leaders appear more interested in power, prestige, and dispensing patronage than they are in ideas and policy.

How many of our leaders have a philosophy of governance, of economic, political, and social development? Our politics is often a barren wasteland where ideas are not nurtured.

By example, there is the urgent need for debate on the structural problems in tourism, crime, and social development. An emerging issue is the relationship between police corruption and gang activity and crime. What are the ideas and plans to increase productivity and the efficiency of the state?

How does one engage in policy deliberation and formulation absent a policy apparatus in the Office of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office? It is akin to a major technology company like Alphabet or Microsoft, not having a research or policy unit. Yet, we are void of a well-structured policy unit. While many would find this shocking, our leaders are mostly blasé and indifferent.

Is it any wonder why policy development, which is never an easy task even in the most organised governments, is so egregiously chaotic in The Bahamas? This is one of the primary reasons cabinet meetings often meander and why the parliamentary timetable is often ad hoc and disorganized.

Without innovation companies fall behind and sometimes die. Lacking innovation in myriad areas The Bahamas has fallen far behind and is languishing in various areas. This includes innovation in and the management of basic public services, which continue to worsen.

Mr. Ingraham carefully managed the country. This included oversight of basic public services, the delivery of which are now “shot to hell” in a range of services. Instead of proper planning, governments are constantly putting out fires.

The first days in office often set a tone and a pattern for a government. Taking a cue from Sir Keir, the new Labour Cabinet appears ready, calm, well briefed, competent, and articulate. There were significant briefing and preparations for a shadow minister well in advance of their election to office.

When is the last time a new Bahamas Government seemed likewise? When is the last time a new government truly “seized the moment” beyond empty rhetoric and grand public relations gestures that produce little of note.

In the King’s Speech yesterday, Labour pressed: “The era of politics as performance and self-interest above service is over.” There is always a performance element to politics. But what Labour may be referring to is the simplistic ad nauseum promotion of performance over substance for which Boris Johnson was infamous.

No matter how many people one hires at OPM and other ministries, communications and public relations will never substitute for and the delivery of services. Moreover, the Tories were also punished because they seemed obsessed with myriad self-interests.

Voters know when cabinet ministers prioritise their interests, perks, and goodies over the needs of the former.

When a government begins in disorder it rarely recovers. Sadly many new cabinet ministers in The Bahamas, giddy at being elected and craving the notoriety, patronage, and spoils of office, soon fail, while still believing they are beloved.

The popularity of the moment is soon ravaged because of the chaos, incompetence, boisterous arrogance, unbridled pomposity, and perceptions of corruption by the public. Add to this ministers who are out of their depth, poorly briefed, sometimes contemptuous of media scrutiny, and indifferent to constituents.

Labour knows the honeymoon will end relatively quickly. This is why it has begun to quickly put in place policies and initiatives intended to yield results. There will be inevitable failures, mistakes, and crises.

But they have a detailed programme of governance as outlined in the King’s Speech, which included 40 bills. We have seen so often here at home the number of bills in the Speech from the Throne, which are never realized in the timeframe suggested.

The experienced 61-year-old Starmer, who served as a senior civil servant, is prepared for office. How well he succeeds or fails is unknowable.

He appears pragmatic, intelligent, ruthless when necessary, generally affable, and a generally effective communicator. Labour reportedly has a number of advisers in think tanks whose task is to help guide the party’s political direction while preparing for the next general election.

This suggests a certain foresight, humility, and wisdom. The conceit of assuming that one will automatically have two terms in office is a fool’s bargain, especially in a country like The Bahamas that has consecutively dumped one-term governments since 1997.

Boris Johnson thought that he was Mr Popularity and would enjoy two terms. He became smug and complacent. At times he coasted. Much of his governance was shambolic and slipshod. Five years later the Tories got a shellacking they could not have imagined.

What are some of the lessons our major parties should learn from the UK? One should seriously and diligently begin to prepare for government while in opposition, including developing legislative and policy initiatives.

Recruit the best possible talent, including advisors and candidates who may serve in cabinet. Develop a policy planning and delivery apparatus across government. Better organise OPM and the Cabinet Office to coordinate government business and communications.

To seize the moment, one must be thoroughly prepared in advance. This might even help a party to win two consecutive terms, of which our politicians seem more interested.

 Yet even amidst this self-interest, might our leaders try to do better in the interests of a citizenry that may reward a party with two terms if they performed better and realised significant change, the quality of which Labour and Sir Keir are offering the United Kingdom after 14 years of dysfunction.

It has been a long time since a new government has been prepared for and truly seized the moment!