I am well aware that nit al, readers of this blog are fans of the Guardian. And yet, beneath its veneer there is comment worth reading.
I read Larry Elliott's critique of Labour's economic policy as criticism yesterday, most especially when he said:
Starmer wants Labour to be seen as a competent party rather than an ideological party. To ram home that message, Dodds made clear that there was no question of a Labour government giving orders to the Bank of England, which would remain fully independent. She clearly has no time for modern monetary theory, the idea that central banks can be ordered to finance government spending and that the only constraint on them doing so is rising inflation.
If that was the case his headline writer did him no favours.
John Harris was clearer, saying:
Our basic system of government is in crisis, from the Whitehall departments that still lord it over faraway towns and cities, to the profiteering shadow state represented by Serco and all the rest. That the Tory dream of “levelling up” is so far the only political trope that has brought any of this to life is proof of the work Labour has to do. There's no guarantee the party will rise to the moment.
He added:
Nonetheless, two questions ought to be nagging at [Labour's] upper ranks. If mass vaccinations finally contain the virus and the Conservatives start to look capable rather than incompetent, how will Labour present itself as an alternative? And if a moment of crisis, institutional failure and rising despair is not a time to think big, when will be?
Harris seems to nail the question down in an appropriate fashion, with Elliott making it clear that when it comes to the economy the answer would appear to be ‘not now'.
That, though, leaves an entirely appropriate question open, and needing to be asked. It is if Labour is not about big ideas when they are very clearly required, then what is it for?
And, as appropriately, if it is not about challenging the ‘profiteering shadow state', which is a phrase Harris appears to coin and which resonates very strongly with me as a description of the edifice that the Tories have created then, again, what is it for?
I wish I knew the answers to these questions. But if it was looking for inspiration I might suggest that it should listen to the video I have put put this morning in which I describe how the state should now be using its power to redirect accumulating savings for social purpose to provide the capital for the economic, social and environmental transformation that we need. That's a big idea. But will Labour jump on it? It would be good if it did. Because it has to jump on something right now.
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:
Do you communicate with John Harris at all Richard. I like his contributions to The Guardian but he lacks a vision to advocate to strengthen his critique. Worth posting your QE series of videos to him?
We have met only once, but worth a try
I think that it would be more worthwhile to post copies of them to Starmer and Dodds.
Starmer is a follower not a leader and has shown himself to have very poor political instincts as evidenced by his Stasi like approach to party management.
The problem is the Labour Party retained its Blairite core in the PLP and in a lot of CLPs, despite accusations of Momentum-led purges. Unfortunately, this wing of the party is still living in 1997. And let’s not forget — the “profiteering shadow state” thrived under Blair and Borwn as well.
This is not to knock all the good New Labour did achieve, but its solutions — competence, prudence, managerialism, focus group-led policies — don’t address today’s political problems, or what a lot of the electorate want. I doubt trustworthiness and competence were at the top of the list of what voters saw in the Johnson-led Tory party when they handed them an 80 seat majority.
You can’t have it both ways. Harris et al got their “safe pair of hands” after Corbyn, and he’s not going to start advocating UBI or MMT.
Corbyn was nowhere near MMT either
Just for the record…..
Sorry – it has to be a ‘No’.
All Labour wants to be is a watered down version of Toryism because it has given up on progressive principles and accepts that Thatcher has won the argument as to how our society ought to be – they are happy in the slipstream of Toryism, and judging by others in the Labour group – also happy to be in the slipstream of populism which from what I can see will be their next big idea if any.
Basically, they’ve given up. So I’ve given up on them and will vote Green in my Tory safe seat henceforth.
And do you know – I don’t think they care either.
Agree 100% with PSR.. the Labour Party wants to be centrist because it wants to get elected.. the “progressives”, Momentum, hard left etc will always fight this and make the party unelectable.. a split is the obvious thing to do
Labour under Starmer like a Tory puppet robotically going through the motions of pretending it isn’t. The UK looks as though it’s heading for dismemberment anyway so Starmer’s and Dodd’s antics don’t have much relevance!
The belief that the Union is over now appears to have become the norm: the media is now reporting it as a ‘when’ and not an ‘if’.
Helen.
I agree, but will England get a new constitutional settlement when the Union is no more?
I don’t want to be left in little England with FPTP.
The direction of travel of Starmer’s Labour Party is towards increasing irrelevance, IMO.
I’ve posted my views on this elsewhere, so won’t repeat them, but Anneliese Dodds’s woeful Mais Lecture was almost the last straw, and profoundly depressing.
Corbyn may nor have got MMT, but at least he saw what the problems were, and his version of the Labour Party had policies to address them.
Starmer’s Labour Party is not only – to quote another comment on this post – Stasi-like in behaviour, but also increasingly like a “Flat Earth” movement, in intellectual and policy terms.
What a combination – authoritarian stupidity, wonderfully exemplifying LBJ’s dismissing of Barry Goldwater as someone who thinks “everything will be OK in the REAR future”.
I repeat, I despair.
You are not alone
I know many who do – perfectly sane people who wonder what choice they now have
Your question asking if Labour is not the party of big ideas, then what is it for, deserves answering, and it is very simple.
Labour exists to fight elections in order to win seats in parliament.
Nothing more than that.
The PLP is, generally, unrepresentative if the party membership, and, with it’s current large cohort of “professional politicians”, there is little hope that any day soon that it will realise it is actually involved in a battle of ideas with the Tories. As long as it accepts Tory framing of ideas, it will get nowhere.
Finally, with a minimum of £80K per annum even when in opposition, why worry about rocking the boat?
Perhaps I am an old cynic, but we all agree the country really needs the chance for some progressive politics, and Labour in it’s current guise is certainly not the vehicle for it. With the LibDems a deeply compromised brand, who still need to recant properly of their complicity in austerity, and the Greens not yet making the electoral breakthrough, we certainly need patience at the very least!
Actually, the best thing Labour could do in my view is to dis-aggregate as a party – split up into its parts and start again.
I think that this might help the real progressives in the party and get them away from the old Left and Blue Labour who should form parties of their own in my view.
I wonder if the English body politic is at heart anti-intellectual (Toryscum certainly are) – they prefer shuffling along with the known, a little bit of re-arrnagement here or there. No wonder Popper (The Poverty of Historicism) was well liked by Thatcher. Perhaps Labourscum under Sir Stalin is, like the toryscum, functionally incapable of offering a different narrative to that of shrinking government. The appendix to Ragged Trousered Philanthropists profiled “Mugsborough” – although written more than 110 years ago, it could have been written now in terms of the stripping out of local gov functions and the corruption of government. Prescient (as is the description of the election – nothing to chose between either party – coming to Ingerland real soon).
That said, the solution lies with UK serfs. They can sit back and take it, or visit their local MPs and start to have robust discussions. Make said MPs uncomfortable, make them confront the everyday reality ( living in poverty — something that now applies to 23% of the population) that affects a growing number. For those reading this that are afflicted with Dodds as MP, why not have a very robust chat. Make Mrs Gormless uncomfortable, make them afraid, fear is a great motivator. I’m not talking pitchforks, but a mob outside her house demonstrating in favour of MMT would be, to say the least, novel. Ditto Sir Stalins house. If nothing else, the meeja would turn up and start asking questions. Could be fun
The serfs have been taught this last 10 years about how to blame each other Mike – that is the problem.
I confess to being ignorant of recent big ideas. The Beveridge Report, commissioned by a Labour Minister, authored by a Liberal, published in 1942 to great acclaim by politicians, the public and press alike and adopted by Labour under Attlee was certainly a “big idea”.
What else? “In Place of Strife”, Barbara Castle’s thwarted proposals to bring some peace to industrial relations? Thatcher’s privatisations? Big ideas or political gerrymandering?
Things have moved on since 1942, or have they? The “5 giants” are still to be slayed, a shameful record for one of the richest countries in the world. Labour should push one smallish idea: that the giants rising again since 2010 are entirely due to Tory political decisions and that defeating them requires a “big idea” as outlined in Richard’s video.
They could even commission a new “Beveridge” along these lines ready to implemented after the next election.
They could….
…but they won’t.
They could indeed………………………….
Labour could do go for a big idea, such as a new Beveridge. But would it, under its new management?
Under the old management, almost certainly, but, frankly, I don’t see it happening under Starmer, who, in addition to the stupidity and authoritarianism I referred to in my earlier comment here, gives every impression of following Hilaire Belloc’s advice to “hold onto nurse, for fear of something worse”, apparently not being able to recognise a big idea, if he tripped over it.
There should be plenty to choose from in the current political maelstrom, a properly integrated National Care Service, fully integrated into a “brought back in-house” NHS, with a properly structured regional and local management structure, for a start.
As to the preposterous headline to Larry Elliot’s piece, talk about sloppy, off-the-shelf thinking, and knee-jerk reaction, and additionally at variance with the facts, given how close Labour came in 2017, with an imaginative and hopeful Manifesto, a million miles away from Starmer’s “hold onto nurse” triangle playing, to accompany and keep up with Johnson’s cacophonous orchestra.
Labour can only win if it thinks big, bold and optimistic/hopeful. It won’t get heard, if it’s content to strike a timid little triangle note, here and there, in the government’s piece of music. It should be writing its own bold, forward-looking “Rite of Spring” type of work.
Some hope with Starmer and his Flat-earthers.
Yes. They do a big idea.
I think Green Bonds is it.
I know it is easy to bemoan Labour’s inability to be more radical (or at all radical) but under the current electoral system if you give up on Labour you are destined to permanent Tory rule. We need to remember that.
I agree
That is why I will plug this idea at them
“if you give up on Labour you are destined to permanent Tory rule. We need to remember that.”
But the thread tells you that the progressives, hard left, momentum etc won’t let Labour get into a position where election victory is possible.. they will moan and undermine not support.. for that reason the Party should split. If it did the probability of an election victory massively increase.
We have been down that route before in 1981 (formation of the SDP) and it did not end well for the left. A repeat would deliver the same outcome – 15 years or Tory rule. In a FTTP electoral system we are destined for a two party system. If any party becomes popular we see their policies being co-opted by one or other of the main parties (eg Brexit and environmental issues) leaving the small parties errr…. still small.
I agree with PSR, Labour is rather a lost cause and only the Greens have any sort of vision and policies to get out of the mess. I thought Momentum was a good development but it has really died on the vine and the “left” is frantically trying to get its act together (such as the new Tribune magazine ), especially now that Tony Benn has gone. Some MPs like Clive Lewis seemed promising but he and others are now completely sidelined and ignored.
I like Clive. We get on and do talk because he is a member of the Green New Deal Group now
Good.
I’ll throw something out there. Should they change their name for a start? Labour is old hat and sat well in a time of industry past and the rise of union/worker power. I don’t think people identify with this anymore. Clause 4 will always give the Tories and their friends in the press a hammer to hit Labour with. How relevant is class based politics today other than for political activists? Yes, there are plenty of have nots, and life is unfair, but Socialism of the left in the UK is just about dead. We are more likely to see the rise of soft national socialism through the Tories, although they would deny it, and Farage’s latest gravy train the Reform Party. The working class as Marx hoped for have never become class conscious. They have as much self interest of what’s in it for them and their own prejudices as anyone else.
I think a Progressive Party would be attractive to many. The obvious agenda would be Green and modern. Labour need to become a green party as do the Lib Dems and offer something completely radically different from the Tories. They should also commit to PR, which of course Labour won’t.
Oh, and one more thing, I don’t think capitalism is going away despite all its failures and crashes. People do like money and the impression is often that Labour want to get their hands on it. Tories have won election after election with this basic “project fear” message. Vote Labour and they will tax you to hell.
Even just being competent – can be at least part of a big idea, it can even be ideological.
It wasnt just incompetence when Sunak rejected the science-based circuit breaker on 21 Sept, it was pure political/ideology.
Starmer should have been banging on about this ever since, instead of merely muttering about following the science – Sunak/Johnson knew they were condemning thousands to death from then on. It would be entirely within Starmer’s self-imposed ‘competence’ remit to point out every week that they have decided to kill thousands deliberately, and that this is why we are now wrestilng with 40000 infections per day, 7000 deaths per week, and lockdowns without end.
He doesnt seem to even have the confidence to press his own case in a way which would be effective politically.
Biden was clear in who was to blame for the US death toll: Trump. And was unfit to be re-elected. Why isn’t Starmer nailing UK deaths, now well over 100k, on the Tories’ appalling handling of the crisis and Johnson in particular. Both the Guardian and Independent have shown how he has completely mishandled the pandemic, quoting from respected scientists. Yet, unlike Biden, neither papers or politicians are willing to pin the blame where it belongs and demand he resigns.
I wish I knew
Some depressing commentary
on here. I’m afraid I’m going to add some more. As many have said, Labour lacks a big idea. It certainly does. I am quite sure the omission will prove terminal. The Tories are already shaping an unassailable narrative of their own. As pointed out above and in The Atlantic (https://twitter.com/TomMcTague/status/1354108882935836673?s=19) the end of Covid-19 will be portrayed as a stunning success. Only a combination of Brexit and our world-beating genetics industries could have won such a victory. Johnson will be the hero. I’m sorry to have to relate, the people will believe this. Not just because the right wing media will sing about nothing else, but because Starmer will give them no choice. His one pitch of basic competence will be redundant by then. His position on the economy will be as muddled as Dodds’ Mais lecture and his bid to win back the red wallers by wearing some Tory clothes will receive the disrespect it deserves.
Like many on here I have lost faith in Labour and certainly in Starmer. I’m not sure where we go from here.
Here’s a blog post I wrote on the same theme. It describes the growing disappointment many have felt in Starmer’s leadership.
https://martinagombar.blogspot.com/2021/01/starmer-and-limits-of-keeping-quiet.html
Do not despair folks.
Starmer may not be round for long and then the leadership will be up for grabs again.
May’s elections may not go well and I can’t see Starmer overturning an 80 seat Tory majority in the next GE anyway. He isn’t going to get his hand on the levers of power. Especially if he doesn’t start coming up with any policies. He can’t hide forever and is going to have to break cover soon. Let’s see what he has to say.
What exactly is Labour’s pitch going to be in the May elections??????
The sands are shifting all the time. Corbyn came from obscurity.
Maybe events in the USA will change the narrative this side of the pond?
If the SNP wins big in May, the whole political landscape will be blown up into the air. Who knows what things will look like when the dust settles.
Seriously if Starmer goes then what? Labour face serious problems when it comes to the direction of what it should stand for. Many of these problems are within the party itself. Look at the leaders it has elected since 1979. They have gone left with the likes of Foot and Corbyn and lost every time, usually by big margins. They then panic and go for a centrist who steals the Tories clothes – Blair, Brown, or a someone like Starmer who is afraid to set his own agenda. They can win with these options, but they are basically keeping the seat of power warm for the next Tory Government. Underneath it all is the fact that the Labour Party is a broad church that finds it hard to elect a leader that they can all get behind. A socialist dream on the one hand or a Tory lite on the other.
The second problem they face is that FPTP is no longer their friend. Scotland is gone for good as the SNP stole Labour’s clothes and offer independence on top which is becoming increasingly attractive thanks to Tory English Government incompetence and an increasing desire north of the border to get away from English Tory dominance. Brexit being the last straw.
Labour now need to win England and little England is not keen on socialism unless it has a hint of national about it. Labour are not going to win over England with a Corbyn or any other “momentum” type leader. They will need to find a leader who can appeal to all wings of the party and England and all its prejudices. Good luck on that one.
Indeed
I agree. Good summary of the problems Labour faces. FPTP
is certainly at the heart of the matter. If Labour lacks the courage to tackle this head on, it may never see power again. Regarding who leads the party, we have no choice but to support Starmer. But not uncritically. Frankly, he needs to wake up. Someone else mentioned his limited political instincts. I think he still plays by the old rules, and does not see how nasty the new game is. There is no obvious replacement anyway. In truth, Labour is not overburdened with talent. I speak as a member of the Labour party.
MarP.
I agree with much of what you say but with two caveats.
1. Labour’s 2017 manifesto was popular with the electorate and Labour came closer to winning than under Brown or Milliband and got a higher percentage of the vote than Blair#3. The difference between 2017 and 2019 was Labour’s change of policy on Brexit (second vote) and the character assassination of Corbyn by much of the MSM.
I’m not sure those “progressive” policies would get Labour a majority in a GE, but I’m not sure ANY policies will get a majority for Labour any more. Their coalition has fractured.
Starmer ran his leadership on a ticket of continuing with those policies but with more competency. (Than Corbyn)
He either believes in the policies or he does not. If he genuinely does, then he should have the faith and promoted them and present the arguments in favour. If he does not, then what does he actually stand for?
2. The idea that it is Starmer or bust for Labour is a strange one. Are you saying that if he gets hit by a bus tomorrow, then it’s game over for Labour? We are then entering the world of personalities rather than policies and exposes Labour’s present dilemma. Starmer is offering no policies but is trying to compete with Boris in the personality stakes. Bad move. He isn’t going to win that particular battle.
The Party has to be more than him surely?
The Party should be about ideas.
Re the 2017 Labour election manifesto it was popular to some degree but Labour did little in Scotland, The Tories actually won 12 extra seats and Labour who used to win big time north of the border, just 6 extra seats, 7 in total. So, it wasn’t that popular in a UK wide sense. In England Labour were still 70 seats behind the Tories and got 41.9% of the English vote compared to the Tories 45.4%. FPTP at its unequal best in action.
I did not say Starmer or bust, just if he goes who else does Labour have right now that could unite the party and offer something that would win across England, Scotland and Wales? A Momentum candidate and a socialist dream would have no chance, are there any up and comers in the Party who would have mass appeal and policies to unite the party and win across the country? Starmer seems afraid to come off the fence, he seems to be in on the we are all in this together now for fear of looking unpatriotic. I think he is waiting for things to get so bad, maybe then he will do something? For now he looks weak.
The party should be about ideas? Yes, but not stuck in the past. Times have changed and Labour needs to change with it. I do not believe that socialism in the traditional sense has got any chance of winning, especially in England. Socially progressive, yes, a balance between the individual and state, yes, freedom and responsibility, yes. A commitment to new ideas – I happen to feel that the green economy is the way forward and a radical alternative to the Tories who operate sticking plaster economics. There’s a radical alternative to be offered, the opposition parties just need to find the balls to do it.
I don’t support Labour, mainly because they will not commit to PR, but I would prefer them to the current rabble. Under PR I would hope for a progressive alliance, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens, SNP (until independance) against the regressive’s, Tories, UKIP, Brexit/Reform Party, DUP. The two party system would be replaced by progressives v regressive’s and the electorate would get a clear choice, the future or the past. No chance of happening anytime soon, but I live in hope.
Me too
Labour really is bereft of ideas. It is making itself irrelevant. Yet we face huge challenges. The climate crisis is looming. Our country needs rebuilding after years of austerity and now a pandemic. Short of a world war I’m not sure what would prompt Labour into action? It represents a mind-numbing failure of the imagination not to see the possibilities. Labour should tackle the climate crisis. Full employment could be achieved and the nation come together in common purpose. Big thinking is certainly needed. And why not take a chance? The lukewarm porridge we’re currently being served is doomed to fail anyway.
MarP.
I’m not sure any Labour policies are going to have an effect in Scotland.
Blair saw to that!!!!!
Scotland might not even be in the UK come the next GE!
41.9% in England isn’t a bad result when most of the PLP and MSM were against the leadership.
The policies polled well individually when put to the public, without mentioning that they were Labour policies.
I never saw them as a throw back, but a way forward.
And as I mentioned before, it’s what Starmer stood for in his leadership bid. I just worry that he doesn’t actually believe in any of it.
It would just be nice to know exactly what he does believe in!!!! The suspense is killing me 🙂
I’m all for PR. It is key to any meaningful change.
Let’s hope for a hung parliament with Labour as the biggest party.
A Labour majority government will not get us any nearer to PR.