In the wake of the Makerfield by-election, there is now a real chance that Labour will change leader. And in turn, this opens the possibility of a much-needed change in direction.

This article contains two articles from 2029, on the day after the general election. They paint two very different futures. Only one is appealing.

Where we have been heading

The removal vans are outside Number Ten. After losing the general election, a dejected but defiant Prime Minister has just finished speaking to the nation:

“I am of course bitterly disappointed to have lost the election, and I take full responsibility for the result. But I am proud of what we achieved in office: we stuck to our guns, we were determined, and we were not afraid to take the tough decisions. We maintained our fiscal rules and our red lines on Europe, and we rebuilt the party’s credibility with the bond markets.

 We tackled the rising costs of welfare spending, removed the triple-lock on pensions and have overseen an enormous modernisation of the Civil Service – embracing AI faster than any other Western nation. I believe that we have left the country in a far better state than it was when we came to office.”

Not everyone was convinced: charity leaders pointed to the continued growth in poverty and foodbank usage, while unions highlighted the ever-growing number of NEETS (people not in employment, education or training) and spoke of an ‘abandoned generation.’ The BMA commented that the ‘near-destruction of the NHS’ was a betrayal of all the government had promised before it came to power. And the Russell Group of leading universities said that what could have been an extraordinary opportunity for a ‘brain gain’ of US academics seeking a new home had been squandered and that our university system was far weaker than it had been five years ago. Speaking anonymously, a senior member of the Armed Forces said that continued underfunding of all three services meant that we were not only unable to project power globally, as our politicians claimed as recently as 2026 that they would be able to do, but even ‘struggle to defend ourselves at home.’

The Prime Minister explained his failure as being due to forces outside his control,

“You have to remember that we had an extremely poor inheritance: the country was in a mess, and debt levels made any major progressive spending impossible. Even so, I believe we were making excellent progress until the US regime imposed global tariffs and started a war in the Gulf which drove up oil prices, hurting the economies around the world.

I am disappointed that voters didn’t give us more time. It’s a funny old world.”

But, as always, it was voters who had the last word. As one long-term Labour voter put it,

“I think they were probably decent enough people – like Biden in the US – but they were completely ineffective in tackling our biggest problems. Now we are landed with a far-right government, so who knows what will happen now.

I just wish they had used their majority while they could.”

Where we could be heading

A visibly elated Prime Minister addressed the nation after the progressive win in yesterday’s general election,

“I want to thank everyone who has enabled this historic win. Our partners in government, our friends in Europe, our professional civil service, the fantastic staff in the NHS and our armed forces, all those working in British businesses, and, most of all, the British people who came together at a time of national emergency and enabled us to begin the transformation of our country.

In 2026, we decided to take stock of where we were, and frankly it was not great: we were way down in the polls, and the public had lost trust that we would ever deliver on our promises. When we looked at the root cause of that perception, it was uncomfortable: put simply, they were right. We had been both too complacent in assuming that we were dealing with a ‘normal’ set of challenges and everything would turn out all right in the end, and simultaneously too timid in the levers we were prepared to pull to deal with those challenges.

We realised that we faced a national emergency and that many of the key steps we needed to take would transcend party politics, so we started working with other progressive parties on areas of clear agreement, such as defending our democracy.

We also decided that we must take control over the economy: there could be no national renewal without economic renewal and there would be no economic renewal while we delegated all the key decisions to unelected institutions. So we re-established control over the Treasury, the Bank of England and the OBR, and created a new department to develop a joined-up strategy for national renewal. This enabled us, as similar arrangements had enabled Attlee’s government, to invest in the NHS, in our schools and universities and in our armed forces. And it enabled us to make the hugely important investments in renewable energy that have brought our carbon emissions down so quickly.

Even better news was the knock-on effect of those investments: employment rose, poverty fell, the NHS became again the most highly-rated healthcare system in the developed world and, as waiting lists fell, more people were fit enough to rejoin the workforce.

For the first time in a generation, real median wages are clearly rising – ordinary people have started to feel the benefit. And as a consequence, so have small businesses. High streets which used to be full of boarded up shops, and charity shops are now buzzing with new retailers, cafes and restaurants.

So I would like to repeat my thanks to everyone who helped make this happen. Now, if you will excuse me, I am off to enjoy a glass of sparkling English wine.”

One voter commented,

“Good on him. To be honest, I didn’t think he could do it. For the first time in years, I feel optimistic.”

Conclusion

If you would rather wake up in June 2029 to read the second article than the first, take a look at the 99% Organisation, and join us.