Andrew Rawnsley said this in The Observer this morning:
In their vagueness about how this feat is to be achieved, the report [on Labour's election loss]'s authors are faithful reflections of the party's leader. Mr Starmer has had almost nothing to say about policy since he became leader. He has been stronger as a prosecutor of the government than he has been as the advocate of a Labour alternative. One shadow cabinet member defends this approach by saying: “No one is ready to hear what a Labour government would do. The summit of our ambition at the moment is to sound credible and reasonable.”
There are many occasions when I have difficulty agreeing with Andrew Rawnsley. This is not one of them. I am hearing this comment from across the Labour spectrum now. And I am also hearing the excuses - including that it's been difficult to recruit policy advisers during lockdown.
I do not buy that claim. Nor do I accept that it is sufficient to sound credible and reasonable. These claims only work if one massive assumption is made, and that is that we are continuing to operate within an existing political and economic paradigm, where the only basis for claiming the right to hold office is managerial competence.
That, however, it is no longer true. The economic paradigm has ended. Neoliberalism has failed. The idea that the only role of politics is to put it back on its perch again, as was the objective in 2009, has to be dead, at least on the political left. The need now is for new thinking. That's the idea implicit on some of my comments published earlier this morning. And that new thinking cannot come from, or be the creation of, policy advisers: it has to be the deep-seated vision of the Labour leadership, or it will not work.
I have a fear. It is that Labour has swapped incompetence for competence, but also vision for managerialism. Incompetent vision was not enough. But nor is competent managerialism. It is time for Keir Starmer to show that he is a man of ideas. If he doesn't soon then Labour will fail to capitalise on the mess that Johnson is making, and we cannot afford that.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I am a labour supporter and have voted for them all my life except at the last election when I voted green ( though effectively a wasted vote)..I was dismayed by the lurch to the left, “wokism” and how the Corbyn, Lansman, momentum thing had made the party incredible and unelectable..Starmer has steadied the ship, looks PM quality but has to get the Party framework in order. To be honest I would like to see those undermining him in the momentum/ far left spilt and form their own party. Call it the socialist party, workers party, anti neoliberals or what ever but that would be the single most obvious thing that would help form a labour government. The general electorate do not want the far left or a big state government.
Speaking as someone on the left I too would like to see the party split.
The way we get there is to tolerate each other in a broad church party until we can get rid of the First Past The Post election system and replace it with something proportional.
So, imho, we’ll have to put up with each other for now. Let’s hope we can do so with grace and kindness.
We cannot really discuss Corbyn’s Labour without considering the impact of Blue Labour (the Right) on the party’s chances in this instance.
From what I have seen, I have observed the Labour Right in denial of Corbyn’s leadership – bare facedly contradicting the leadership in public. I was at a Radiohead concert in Manchester in July 2017 where Thom Yorke started to play the ‘Oh Jeremy Corbyn’ riff and the crowd spontaneously joined in. I can’t remember seeing that ever for Tony Blair or Gordon Brown.
So what happened? Oh – we KNOW what happened don’t we?
All leaders have the potential to undermine themselves – look at Cameron or May for example, and Johnson now. But if the party is not pulling behind the leader (even if they disagree with them) and the public gets wind of it, the Party concerned is wounded electorally and the leader is finished.
The way the Labour Right undermined Corbyn is a disgrace. You cannot fight a battle on two fronts. The Right put themselves before those they say they represent. The Labour Right should be ashamed.
I could not give a fig now for the supposed Left in this country. You cannot be left to work together effectively to protect working people like me and those worse off who need you even more.
As for the so-called ‘centre’ – please entertain the idea will you that the centrism is not a party position OK? Centrism is the RESULT (policies – yeah?) of compromises made by effective politicians with different views, especially if they are in the same party. You know – a win/win – not the destructive ‘not one of us’ tactics that Thatcher brought to British politics.
Added to that, you are also as a movement are ignorant of fiscal policy in the context of sovereign currency production to the point where it makes you akin to a Dodo – yes that’s right – Labour are on the way to extinction if not extinct already.
Labour will certainly not be getting my vote until I see a vast improvement in unity and a willingness to try out Modern Monetary Theory. As a life time Labour voter I’m bloody serious.
If Labour wants a new big idea (in fact the country needs a big new idea) then you had better start reading Stephanie Kelton and other MMT proponents and take Professor Murphy back on as a advisor (if he is not too busy).
And whilst I’m at it, will the Labour party PLEASE learn how to work with other like minded progressive parties for once?
Yes that’s right – PROGRESSIVE – not ‘Left’ or ‘Right’ – progressive means being able to take on new ideas to deliver what Labour has supposedly stood for since it was created.
And it also means sharing power with allies. If Labour cannot do that, then it is nothing but a mirror of the Tory party.
Thank you.
People have to learn that under proportional representation, the Tories would not have had a single majority government in the last 80 years.
They also have to understand that throughout this period, Labour systematically blocked all attempts to introduce PR.
This betrayal of original Labour party values has a name – ‘Labourism’. If I may quote from a Labour writer and academic Jermey Gilbert writing in The Guardian…
“The general electorate do not want the far left or a big state government.”
Well now they’ve got what they wanted a government so incompetent you may as well rename the country Fiasco Land!
You only see what the print media lets you see and that includes the tv stuff. I call it Stuff because it stuff full of rubbish. Yet still the mantra corbyn was rubbish and yet we have a rubbish PM, a rubbish govt, and a rubbish reaction to covid 19 and still do.We have a rubbish opposition leader who do nothing like the former in taking the government to task. Yet Starmer manner and style is sung like choir singing when the second coming of christ is about to happen.
Corbyn and co would of done a better job than bojo, a least he would of worked a lot damn hard and improve on the job. Also on here and in the media, it is ignored the labour party HQ sabotaged the elections. Yes i said elections, i do not believe for one moment they just stopped at 2017 it went right on to the day corbyn left. To this news is not shock or what the hell, it is the mantra “lets be friends” and the sneering “tut tut labour is fighting again. ”
Starmer is just fence sitting, kicking people out he does not like and offering nothing. As for the where are the policies mantra? i will tell you where he will get them from! Policy polls, and policy forums, just like they did under blair. If the policy is to slag off the poor is popular, so be it, the red tories will adopt it. If it is for benefit cuts, more austerity, they do it. Oh no you say, starmer is not like that. Get real they did that under Miliband and Blair. Starmer has told his crowd to say nothing and answer questions with a nothing. After all it gets them votes from the tommy robinson crowd who are voted tory last time. It also gets him praises for academics and the tories.
Do you not just love the times we are in now. All singing praise him, praise him. I am not talking about bojo either.
Darren
With respect, it is beyond doubt that Starmer has been 1,000 times better than Corbyn at holding the government to account, so far
To be credible your claims have to stack and that one really does not
Richard
I too have read Rawnsley this morning and your post is most agreeable.
I’d love to know how to become a policy advisor.
I’m not hopeful about Labour at the moment. If I had the money, I’d buy Kelton’s book for all the Labour MPs.
It’s a great idea
Cost? £10k?
And would they read it?
Well, I have this dream of delivering a van load to Parliament and publicising the fact.
I’m not sure if they would read it, but after being offered it they must be able to have a view.
Then the debate starts.
It’s only £20 so the cost is around £5k but it would be a terrible waste of money because most of them are too thick to gain anything from it. Their first words as babes would have been ‘how are you going to pay for it?’
We are well and truly f*cked.
Resurrecting the 2019 manifesto post- Brexit wouldn’t be a bad start — We all might be ready to take it on board, now
Agreed. That 2019 GE manifesto has all we need for electoral success.
But shorten it to:
Green homes for all (leaving room for rivers), votes for residents and open borders.
I’m not so sure about the enduring speed of a free state-maintained Internet. We may need to retain world-class experts for that.
You read the comments on the Rawnsley article and most of them are pure waffle! The commenters have no real idea what Harmer stands for outside of Remain. In particular they have no idea, despite Starmer’s vague leadership campaign (Anyone but another Corbyn), on a key issue whether he will try to balance the government’s books and impose austerity cuts to do so. The waffle comments reflect once again the British electorate’s reluctance to take their politics seriously and be an informed democracy!
Richard, I get your point about what is Starmer’s vision? It shouldn’t be difficult. For example the state pension is one of the worst in Europe. Dear citizen( subject) the triple lock is all well and good but look at the bigger picture. Uk , 29% of final salary state pension in contrast with Spain’s 85%+ of final salary. This is our direction of travel- voter. Do the maths John!
For once, I am not sure I agree with you. I have been a Labour supporter for 45 years so I do come with a lot of baggage…. but here is how I see it.
Nobody buys from a salesperson they do not trust. The 2019 Labour manifesto had lots of good stuff in it……polling on policy was broadly supportive. But ultimately, voters did not trust Corbyn and he lost. Distrust of Corbyn (plus anti-semitism etc.) became distrust of Labour more generally
so, Starmer’s first job is to re-establish credibility and trust. Being a competent opposition is the first step and I would argue that is is becoming just that by focusing on the detail of government failure. With competence will come trust and only once that is established should Labour do more to develop policy.
The country needs to get to know Keir Starmer before they will listen to him selling new ideas. His job is to carry on being “Mr. boring/sensible”. Our job is to keep radical ideas in the public domain so that when the time is right, they do not seem so radical and Labour can adopt them.
The next election is 2024 so I am content to give him until 2021 to build his image with the public.
What do I worry about??
(1) I WILL expect him to deliver vision at that point…. and that is the question. Will he?
(2) What about an early election? Possible…. but I would hope he could accelerate the process of delivering vision.
(3) Is there anyone in Labour that will champion MMT in a serious way?
Richard, I hear your call for urgent change but “politics is the art of the possible”.
Hmmmm….
I’m not sure I agree
Let’s out it like this: competent and reasonable is great
When I was mainly a practicing chartered accountant people wanted me to be both
But the also needed to know I was a chartered accountant
And even where I stood on things like tax avoidance
Being competent and reasonable was not enough – they had to know what I was also doing, and with what aim
Labour’s doing the competent and reasonable but People have too also know what the product is
Without that politics is not even politics
That’s why I don’t agree
“And even where I stooped on things like ax avoidance”
Dear me, accounting has become more dangerous since I were a lad.
Oops, I should not use an iPad…corrected
Alas, I fear Starmer will do nothing but nudge the party back towards the centre because that’s all the once again dominant New Labourites know.
The recently released review of the election result seems on the surface to be an honest attempt to look at the problems, but it seems to skirt over the massive impact of Brexit policy. Not surprising, as Starmer was one of the movers and shakers who got the party to campaign on the back of another referendum.
The Tories and their press did a good job on Corbyn’s reputation, ably abetted by a large chunk of the Labour right who did nothing but attack from the off, but I do wonder exactly what the report was trying to achieve when it included stuff like this (quote taken from the Graun) :
—
The views of one 52-year-old woman who voted Labour in 2017 are summarised in the report as: “Frightened at the possibility of a Marxist government. Disgusted at Corbyn being a terrorist sympathiser. Most disturbed about plan to nationalise BT as I fear it would allow a Labour government to spy on internet users.”
—
There’s so much stupidity in that statement that I can’t imagine quite what they are trying to achieve with it. If you hunt around enough, I’m sure you could get all sorts of nonsensical stuff on any topic, but why would you?
Starmer has started the job in a tricky situation due to the pandemic but he’s been too slow to go on the attack and there are already signs that the Tories plan to use the Trump playbook of bluster and lies to counter his middle of the road competence.
Without a strong message and brave policy, there’s too much of a risk Labour will be overwhelmed by a wave of bluster, especially if they don’t counter the narrative of government as a household when it comes to spending. If they can’t do it now when money is being created hand over fist to prop up the economy, when will they ever do it?
Clive
All I saw New Labour do really was make it possible for the 2010 Tories to build on the increasing private practice orientated public sector (like in the NHS and education) they left behind.
The ‘art of the possible’ seems to me to be dictated, funneled and narrowed down in favour of markets every time Clive – EVERY TIME.
Therefore there is an inherent market bias in our polity these days that replicates itself in the ‘art of the possible’ over and over again.
We need a new politics and new paradigms I’m afraid.
Managerialism was a standard for success set by the SNP when it took power; because it had to prove its basic competence to a cautious and sceptical electorate when it first took power. Its problem has been moving beyond managerialsm as a basic test for executive government to a strategic vision prepared even to grapple with the evident and obvious collapse of neoliberalism as demonstrated by the financial crash as a demonstration of intellectual inadequacy, but the pandemic as the final coup de grace to its sustainability.
The SNP is comforted in Scotland by the transparent lack of vision, judgement, or even basic articulate talent on the benches of Conservative and Labour in Scotland. It has become safe and reassuring to stick to managerialism: the pandemic has served to reinforce the message because the UK Government is so obviously wantonly and woefully deficient on any calibration of Government you care to use. Perhaps Starmer thinks he can fly to success on the wings of managerialism.
It is a fallacy to believe that any political party is likely to be store or leader in providing vision, ideas or originality; still less of real insight into anything, or talent for much. Why would they be. What are they? How do they renew themselves. They are gatherings of vested interests and stores of resources to serve them, and provision propagandists and public relations spinners of narratives with the loosest connection with reality. They invariably serve the status quo, dressed to be presentable no matter the fashion of time; a status quo which is never overturned by active politics in anything approximating “normality”.
Who thinks it is a smart idea leaving Johnson in charge of governing Britian in the middle of this crisis, and his calamity, and a probable ‘no deal’ Brexit (no doubt dressed as a deal, but with precisely nothing in it) is a good idea?
We do not have until 2024. As things stand, I do not see Scotland standing more of this, in the vague hope that Starmer might a) sort out an opposition position that is credible b) even then win an election c) actually change anything once he wins.
According to Panelbase, Scotland is now 54% pro-independence. No wonder. This is beyond farce and – forgive me – this discussion does not offer a solution. I do not think there is one for the UK, but not even for England (Wales or NI).
@John S Warren
“According to Panelbase, Scotland is now 54% pro-independence. No wonder.”
No wonder ? Considerable wonder in this quarter…… that the figure is so dismally low! What on earth do unionists in Scotland believe the Union is offering ? I don’t get it.
Me neither
Perhaps that is because you do not realise just how conservative (small-c) and cautious the Scottish electorate always has been. As at 2018 in Scottish demographics, 19% were over 65 years old. A very high proportion of this group are not going to change their mind now, or be willing to turn their fundamental beliefs inside-out or upside down, no matter what; their perception of reality has turned from acquiring belief and knowledge from experience of life, to total, unconsidered faith in their cherished beliefs. It astonishes me what some people are prepared to believe and accept as true, when presented by a British Government that is bereft of any standards at all, and has obviously catastrophically failed on any measure whatsoever, or what their newspaper or the BBC instructs them (simply reinforcing their known prejudices); but they do, and they possess prejudices.
The characteristic nature of this form of political conservatism will diminish over time through natural attrition, but only slowly. Effectively that leaves the political ‘battle’ to be fought over the 81%+ remaining in Scotland (the ‘+’ are the open-minded elderly, still willing to learn), and that makes a closer understanding of statistical ‘progress’ in support of independence more important, and smaller movements than you are looking for, more significant. The trend is in the right direction. Perhaps you also do not realise just what a radical change had taken place in Scotland even to produce 45% in 2014. I think that represented an increase of perhaps 15%-20% over what many Unionists complacently would have expected (but not entirely without reason) when the referendum was announced.
There are ‘tipping points’; the tipping point has not yet quite been reached.
Remember this. The over 65s in Britain as a whole represent 18% of the total; and from what I can see, there seem to be a far larger number of deeply reactionary people, and active reactionaries in politics in Britain, and in younger age groups than in Scotland (we have very, very reactionary people, and belligerently reactionary politicians, but their popular support is somewhat more limited); and reactionary politics of a virulent kind (the kind that labels any very modest liberal or interventionist politics or economics, as being dangerous ‘communism, or ‘fascism’), are much more prevalent in England, and more mainstream.
I may be wrong, I have not lived in, or even visited England in years; but that is my impression and observation.
I am not a supporter of the Labour Party but I’m naturally concerned about its effectiveness as it is our only hope of ousting the Tories. While everyone and their dog will be offering advice, I’ll still throw in my 2 cents’ worth as briefly as possible.
Both Andrew Rawnsley and you make a very important point. One can only hope that Keir Starmer is listening and understands. Once a new manifesto is agreed – he does seem to have sufficient integrity and gravitas to convince England’s middle ground that he’s a ‘safe pair of hands’. But under our archaic voting system, combined with the Right-wing’s current strangle-hold over money and media, it’s going to be a Herculean task.
To cut to the chase, the main priority has to be the construction of a macro-socio-economic framework that will enable & make feasible the lexicon of policies deemed necessary to meet the challenges of the future — viz a GND (no need to reinvent the wheel). To do this he should bring together a small consultative/advisory group that includes key heterodox thinkers from outside its own ranks. To save him the time, as a starter for 10 here are four initial recommendations: Stephanie Kelton, Richard Murphy, Kate Raworth and John Fullerton (Regenerative Capitalism).
Over to you Keir and good luck mate. You’re going to need it.
I suspect none of us will get a look in
The left hates MMT for a start – although almost none of them have read it
What do you think the ‘left’s rationale is for hating MMT?
One might expect ‘them’ to be grabbing it with both hands
(‘…’ because the ‘left’ can be interpreted to cover a very broad field. All the way from the People’s Front to ………)
It challenges the fact that most are neoliberal at heart – and they really don’t like that
I am also reminded of J K Galbraith’s insight: “Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof”
Surely Starmer has heard of the adage “never let a crisis go to waste”. If now is not the time to articulate a vision of how society should be organised post Covid when is? Johnson and Cummings are not letting it go to waste. The COVID money is all going to the private sector, and public sector is being bypassed and further reduced. Local Authorities are rapidly heading for bankruptcy and I see no action from the Government to stop it.
Their shrills are all out in the press taking about how are we going to pay for all this largess. And Labour is where? No where. Totally silent.
Behind the press silence post Brexit deals are being done, eg joining TTP and losing all control. Why isn’t Labour shouting about it? https://truepublica.org.uk/united-kingdom/britain-to-join-despised-ttp-wikileaks-a-huge-transfer-of-power-from-people-to-big-business/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TruePublica+Weekly+Newsletter
Where is the demand to change from the polluting precovid world to the one we glimpsed? Where was the demands for funding to enable more classrooms and teachers to be employed to meet the maximum class size of 15? and the improved outcomes that would bring? Silence, again, and already the opportunity has been lost as the Government rushes back to classes of 30to meet the demand that children get back into school. I’ve given up on Starmer already. This is a God given opportunity and he is totally missing in any meaningful vision and action. Don’t just oppose, offer an alternative.
New thinking for the Labour Party perhaps, but the things that need to be done to create a fairer less unequal society are well known. In no particular order: kick start a GND, which in itself would tackle many of the injustices that exist; PR for elections (there’s been a group in Labour since the 70’s advocating PR and in the 2018 Act PR was rejected by a small majority); take public control of utilities, other natural monopolies and strategic industries; undo the privatisation of public transport, bring it under public control/ownership and create an integrated strategy and network; stop building new roads; create strategies to increase cycling and walking as the default transport solution for short journeys; reverse the disastrous “reforms” to the NHS and increase investment. There’s an enormous amount needing to be done on these and other things like employment, care, retirement, flying, poverty, high pay, wealth, racism, law & order, education, hate, xenophobia ……
New thinking for Labour on MMT, the economy and “how we pay for it”, but is it really new or hasn’t it been around, if ignored recently, for some time?
I agree with your analysis of this problem, Richard, but sadly there is a greater one for Labour to overcome.
The electorate of this country doesn’t only care about management competence or vision. The rise of influence from social media has empowered opinions in a vacuum of logic and those who, hitherto would not have professed political expertise and simply deferred to others, now deem themselves to be sufficiently astute to rely upon their own judgement or that of their peer groups. Sadly democracy has always relied upon the principle that people will make rational decisions in their own best interests or the interests of those they seek to support. That is no longer the case.
The damage done by the overwhelmingly right wing press has been embedded in the psyche of the population by a constant barrage of affirmation on social media from those who hold similar views. No accident , of course, the likes of Dominic Cummings and similar exploiters have ensured that the embedding is deeply ingrained by appealing to, what used to be, unacceptable prejudices and giving them voice.
Labour meanwhile, behaves as if none of this has actually happened and all that is required is to point out the logic and morality of their manifesto and to build a faith that it has the management skills to deliver.
We need a great deal more, we need to de-radicalise the British media by utilising greater expertise on the platforms of influence. Can it really be the case that in 2020, still just within a generation of a world war against fascism, swastikas and nazi salutes have become the adopted symbols of those who detest the left’s fight for equality and justice. ‘Liberalism’ has been accepted to infer the very opposite of its meaning, and the beauty of snowflakes is now the ultimate insult by those who cite WW2 and patriotism as their anthems to a society that is diametrically opposed to the one created by the post war generation. Social media, aided and abetted by the right wing press, has enabled the Cummings’ generation of ‘special advisors’ get away with this. In other countries, the state has also become expert in this manipulation.
Exposing it won’t end it, ‘telling isn’t selling’, but we need to mobilise on a different front if we are to have any hope rescuing this country from an increasingly dystopian future. We urgently need to think laterally and ‘up our game’ in this new world order.
We do indeed need to up our game…
PS Do you have any links to Lihou?
Yes, I wrote a book about the links, it’s on my website, ‘500 Years of Island Life’.
I love Lihou!
@Peter Lihou says:
“Sadly democracy has always relied upon the principle that people will make rational decisions in their own best interests or the interests of those they seek to support. That is no longer the case.”
I’m fairly sure people DO think they are making rational decisions. Just because you (and a lot of other people who inhabit and visit this space, don’t agree with their conclusions (firm in the belief that WE are being rational) doesn’t mean other people aren’t behaving in a manner which they believe to be in their rational best interests.
The issue is one of trust. Taking an extreme, but very real and present case as an example, millions of Americans trust Donald Trump to be acting in, or representing, what they perceive to be their best interests. Put simply it’s the old, tired patriotism argument: what’s good for my country is surely good for me? It will take a very persuasive narrative to shift their opinion, if indeed it is possible at all. Closer to home there is a similar fixed mindset regarding Brexit. Radicals and extremists commonly claim to speak for the silent majority, but the essential challenge of democracy is to convince the silent majority to have opinions (preferably reasonably well-informed, rational opinions).
I said that democracy relies on people making rational decisions, not that it relies upon them thinking they are doing so. And if you think it’s rational for a car worker to vote for a party that will risk the existence of the automotive industry, or vote for a party leader who has publicly lied about their intentions to fund the NHS, remain in the single market, or create a border in the Irish Sea, you have a strange idea of reason.
And it is not simply about trust either, I don’t doubt that voters trusted Corbyn to implement his manifesto but they were persuaded by the media to intensely dislike him. There were very few attacks on his manifesto, it was the individual who took the brunt of the aggression. And I don’t doubt that voters are and were aware that Johnson is untrustworthy, his lies are a matter of public record. But they chose to ignore that track record.
The influences that are at work are much baser than either reason or trust. They are rooted in the fear that feeds all prejudices and they have been stoked by the right. Those influences have been conjured up here, in Trump’s US, and in other countries where the far right is in ascendency. Patriotism is merely a vehicle for prejudice, if it wasn’t, you would hardly see swastikas and Nazi salutes when these represent what is still regarded as the most existential threat to our nation in modern history. When ‘patriots’ are reminded of the long overdue report on Russian involvement in our democracy or the fact that the government’s chief advisor worked in Russia for 3 years, or the probable involvement of Russia in channeling funds through Banks in the Brexit campaign, or the pretty obvious reality that (even Brexiteers acknowledged) our economy and hence our defence capability will be compromised by leaving the EU to a greater or lesser extent, they simply change the subject. Even the singular aspect of independent control of laws and decisions is not of great interest to them when it is pointed out that we will still have to follow rules and laws made outside this country.
Logic and reason have left the room and in its place fear and prejudice now reside, masquerading as nationalism and patriotism. If we don’t attack the real enemy, we will allow it to engulf us, just as it did in 1930s Germany.
In the months ahead, Starmer must unite the left and centre behind Labour. There’s already less than a fag paper’s difference between the Greens and Labour, and an alliance (dare I say affiliation) of the two would be far greater than a sum of the parts. It would also allow Labour to dominate the Climate Agenda. Then there’s Brexit, there is a logical way to draw in the vast majority of Lib Dem supporters and that is to set out measures of success and a timescale for a possible Breturn if Brexit fails to deliver. I know that’s unthinkable now and it would involve a great deal of fancy footwork with EU members states but the pain of Brexit has not yet come close to the surface. It is one thing to complain and shout loudly about beliefs but quite another to experience poverty and unemployment. This pain could easily kick in before the next election and a Labour government that offered a chance to reconsider would sweep up a great deal of hitherto fragmented support. It would need to be seen not to be frustrating Brexit and the reality is that a bad or no deal would damage the Tories as much as a deal that is seen to betray their hard Brexit pledges.
The stakes are high and we cannot afford to waste time on the wrong strategy.
Mr Lihou,
I agree with much of your analysis, about the manipulation of the press, and irrationality; but I differ or quibble over one matter. People are not (and never were) ‘rational’, save within certain quite restricted limits. The appeal to reason requires to be more rational about its expectations (which are usually perversely irrational), and realism requires nothing like the aspirations of pure ‘rationalism’. Reason is deployed, but not in the service of reason; nor will this change.
It was David Hume who first understood this; and Schopenhauer who explored the consequences, albeit from a different perspective and using unfortunate terminology (and Schopenhauer, for all the differences admired Hume). Modern cognitive neuroscience has begun to understand the implications, and through the work and results of such biochemists and biophysicists as Eric Kandel
It is not understood just how close to Fascism the Conservative Party was in the 1930s, even after war was declared. Churchill’s greatest victory of all was defeating the major Chamberlain element in the Party, and keeping Britain in the war. The recent film ‘Darkest Hour’ (2017), has some preposterous elements (like the subway trip scene), and I do not think even once mentions the most critical figure in the spider’s web, who worked in the darkest shadows; the MI5 officer, first Director of Research of the Conservative Party (1930-39), close friend and advisor to Chamberlain, the rather sinister figure of Sir Josph Ball (1885-1961). He bugged Churchill’s phone (and the Labour Party – he may have been responsible for the Zionviev letter that wrecked their election in 1924), was attempting to negotiate peace with Hitler through the Italians, for Chamberlain (running an operation independent of the FO), ran the notorious Pro-German, anti-American, anti-semitic news magazine ‘Truth’ (research some years ago suggested it was bought and controlled by Ball for the Conservative Party), and he was perhaps the first modern ‘spin-doctor’, manipulating the press using techniques that would be recognised today. He survived everything, even Churchill.
For anyone who wishes to understand a liitle more about Ball see RB Cockett, “Ball, Chamberlain and Truth” in ‘the Historical Journal’, (1990). Ball burned all his papers before he died, save a for a few probably anodyne remnants now in the Bodleian, Oxford (0.77 linear metres of papers). There is no full biography of Ball that I know of, in spite of his elusive importance in modern British history.
Makes me speculate what Cummings was really doing in Russia working for MI5 or Putin or both? A sort of modern day reverse Kim Philby? If the former it might help explain why the police had their knuckles rapped in Durham. Who knows? This country has been run in the interests of a powerful and rich elite for centuries. Even some of my ancestors were mercenaries for William The Conqueror! (Not my choice obviously!)
Guy Burgess was an associate of Joseph Ball (among other things, perhaps as a courier between Ball and Daladier?), and it has been suggested that Ball had a hand in his appointment to the BBC, if not the intelligence services, although all this is obscure.
Ball, incidentally did not only ‘bug’ (hack) the phones of the Labour Party. He infiltrated it, comprehensively. He was said to be receiving some of its own printed output before Labour’s own HQ.
This is not territory any historian should willingly approach because all the facts are treacherous, or not accessible, or do not exist, or nobody wants the stone upturned.
Starmer has been the leader of the Labour Party for less than three months, during a period when the country has faced a pandemic and the Government has shown itself to be useless in multiple directions in parallel and in series. And then we will have the fallout to Brexit becoming real in the New Year, which will almost inevitably be another series of equally triumphant policy successes.
For the time being, Starmer’s strategy of exuding calm competence, while letting the other side make mistakes, is fine. He needs to keep his powder dry until he needs to use it (assuming he has some of course). In due course – towards the end of this year and into next year – Starmer will need to set out his stall.
And yet the comments to this post show several people in favour of the Labour Party splitting up. Perhaps it is just rhetorical, but such talk will be music to the ears of Conservatives, who will be happy to continue to divide and rule. They’ve probably got another 4.5 years of government with a significant parliamentary majority to the end of 2024, the first past the post system is in their favour, and Labour sabotaging itself (again) could see them back in power (again).
Don’t worry, Labour does a grand job of sabotaging itself (and progressivism as whole) by systematically blocking all attempts to introduce PR.
To their utter shame, that lets the Tories in the majority of the time.
Labour truly are the Tories Trojan horse.
The reality is we have to face massive change. It was there in 2019 but for all the reasons under the sun people didn’t want it. Instead we got this lot.
I think if the pandemic stays prevalent we will be forced to change otherwise it will be business as usual with two pro-establishment parties.
I loath the idea of centrists policies that just effectively sugar coat Neolibralism. And the establishment has the working class as soldiers fighting their way against Socialism and Communism it seems. (The same people that want to defend the NHS at all costs.)
We are a nation embittered with the act of self-harm. Until we break that cycle I can’t see much good being part of the future.
Corbyn’s fence sitting over brexit damaged his credibility as a leader and then labour’s blairite machinations destroyed the very leader their membership elected.
Starmer buried the executive report that showed how the right of the party confected the antisemitism smears and preferred a tory victory to a corbyn victory.
That does not bode well if that is representative of his character.
Obviously the media played a massive role. We even saw the hatchet jobs from the beeb acting as a propaganda arm of the govt.
This control is still evident with the current ‘leaks’ and paywalled covid updates.
Whatever starmer/labour does it is going to come down to combatting that narrative control of the establishment.
So yes making bojo look incompetent seems to be a task the former prosecutor is up to at PMQ’s.
But where is the radiant brilliance that can guide the shambles of Great Britain towards the light?
Obviously coherent rational policy that is relevant for the 21st C is vital and that could be messaging for the electorate to coalesce around.
I’m not aware of any though.
But if they did they still have to get the message across and who is as motivated on their side as cummings?
He seems to aspire to literally shred the civil service and remake some kind of anorexic privatised shell made of wet tissue.
Who has equal drive and motivation on the labour team?
Where are labour’s lion hearted champions of democracy and the little guy?
Where are labour’s social media and messaging gurus?
They seem as absent as any policy.
[…] Competent managerialism is not enough for Labour Tax Research UK. Beautiful plumage! […]
I am frustrated by Keir Starmer, but am more than prepared to be patient. I have an historical dislike of Labour but accept that they may be the only game in town. Labour does need to be a broad(er) church welcoming cooperation and collaboration; fragmentation under FPTP is of no use at this time.
Starmer is much more electable than Corbyn and the reasonableness thing counts. I agree that he could and should give a lead on e.g. GND, but he does have Ed Milliband and others giving some life to this. There are more reports in the press of economists and others making the case for GND type stuff – it evens appears in the Daily Mail (Britain’s top selling newspaper…! )
There was a horse trainer on Desert Island Discs the other day – his approach is that the horse should ride at an even pace throughout the race. It is just one approach, but it does work in many areas.
The Tories have done a series of fast runs that have outpaced the opposition, but people are beginning to see the folly of this – even Tories are seeing it on e.g. US trade deal, U-turns, asleep on watch etc.
My view is that we should keep engaging with politicians in whatever way we can. I write to our local (Tory) MP fairly often; usually trying to appeal to their better nature and picking up on a small thread that might hit the mark – Dominic Cummings, farming and US trade deal, previously BREXIT and so on.
Don’t give up!
Alfred Good was a founding member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales. He was born in 1826 during the reign of George 1V and lived through the reign of five monarchs the last being George V. Alfred Good developed into a very successful businessman eventually heading his practice in Moorgate London.
He started work as a junior bank clerk; in those days such work was poorly paid, and he supplemented his income by acting as a secretary to a building society and obtaining what part-time jobs he could as an accountant. Before the advent of such modern aids as adding machines and computers, the singular skill required of an accountant was a high proficiency in mental arithmetic. Thus, the ability to calculate at speed and accuracy invoice totals with the appropriate discounts and add-ons was a necessity. Interviews would, therefore, require relevant practical demonstrations.
Nowadays, no such demonstration would be required; we incorporate such skills as needed into other requirements. I guess that very few modern accountancy candidates would pass those Victorian tests. Equally, I think few Victorian would get a look-in in today’s job market – rejected as lacking the appropriate professional training, and both sets of candidates would most likely fail as lacking the proper social/political attitudes.
Richard, like Alfred Good you have also developed thriving accountancy and consultancy practice. You have identified a set of managerial skills and qualities that your clients need to succeed in business. Those skills are tried and tested. You reject Jeremy Corbyn as lacking those essential qualities. Are you not making the same error as those who oppose MMT? Conflating the experience needed to run a good business with the necessary conditions to lead our Country may be a mistake. People who identify Government finances as identical to household budgets give concreteness to that abstraction outside its legitimate remit – a failure to address the correct system boundary. Our Universe is exceedingly complex, not only is it unknown it is unknowable. Hence the need for abstractions, as Whitehead remarked they give us no clue when we exceed their legitimate remit. That is the property of all such notions. The Labour Party’s project under JC was to expand the system boundary of government by increasing the democratic input of the populous. Less hierarchy more heterarchy. Less need to have managerial skills embodied solely in the leader. Any personal qualities lacking can quickly be supplied from among supporters. Those skills are shared and distributed. This is known as the principle redundant command as coined by the Cyberntician Warren McCulloch.
Like the respective interview panels, are we not in danger of rejecting the right leader for all the wrong reasons?
I knew full well that we needed to expand government
And McDonnell (and so by extension) bought the household analogy hook line and sinker
So I rejected them
And for very good reason
“So I rejected them“
Really!! So you are saying John McDonnell is a total liar? He has said they dropped you and you wanted a seat in the House of Lords! How hypocritical is that?
They offered me the seat as a way to pay me when the Labour Party was trying to squeeze the funds McDonnell had
And he leaked the peerage discussion: I didn’t
I have been following the responses to this thread, amazed at the range of mostly entrenched views representing the full gamut of Labour factions (and some anti-Labour ones).
The Rawnsley piece about Starmer showing himself effective but so far providing no vision hardly justifies a comment it is so obvious – in fact so obvious I made the same point on this blog a couple of weeks ago. I very much hope he has ideas, but I also suspect he is sensible enough to realise that any vision based on pre-pandemic Britain may look completely unrealistic once we actually know what the post-pandemic context is. At the moment we don’t.
I have no personal political allegiances, and would simply like to think there was some Party that shared at least in part my own aspirations about the sort of country we could and should be. But I couldn’t conceive of supporting Corbyn last December, not because of any perceived Marxism/terrorism/etc but because his abject failure to provide leadership in opposition meant there was absolutely no confidence he could form an effective alternative government. On the major issue of the day, he proved himself unable to effectively scrutinise and hold to account a government that repeatedly offered the opposition an “open goal”.
For me, the fact that Starmer is changing that perception of the Labour Party is enough for now. He will need to provide an enticing alternative vision in due course, and I hope the groundwork is being done in some depth, but until the immediate crisis is over no one knows quite what the biggest priorities will be (even though we can begin to make informed guesses).
Thank you Jonathan – balanced and I think about right. When we have a government behaving like this, looking like the opposite is a strategy in itself. The vision and strategy can come later though I would like to think it is being worked on.
With all due respect, I don’t think Starmer is holding the government to account. He’s better at playing the opposition game at PMQs but that’s mere theatre. Since he’s a committed neoliberal, he is permitted to challenge the idiots in charge. He would be allowed to become pm. The press can go back to appearing to allow opposition because the opposition is now pretty much ideologicly the same as the government.
A block of wood in a suit.