There are occasions when politicians baffle me. I will exclude Tories from that comment: their very existence is hard to explain. I refer instead to those from other parties. Like Keir Starmer, in particular.
Starmer has three jobs. He has to lead the Labour Party. If he has not noticed it, this was and is rooted in the labour movement, as represented by trade unions. As such it is his job to represent the political interests of working people.
Second, the has to oppose the government. This is a necessary part of holding the title of Leader of the Opposition - for which he does receive an official salary. The key to this role is also in the name: the job is to oppose the government by pointing out its failing.
Third, and to fulfil the objectives of the first two roles, has job is to win the next general election and then form a government. Again, without wishing to point out the obvious, this requires that in a two party system he wins mass popular support.
Right now Keir Starmer is being assisted by three things. The first is that working people are united in their concern about a cost of living crisis that can only be addressed through fair pay rises to ensure that people can continue to pay their bills as they fall due. There is nothing especially difficult to understand about this. If costs rise - as energy will - by more than £2,000 in a year and many other expenses, such of those on food, are also rising rapidly then either people without savings (which is most people in the country) get a fair pay rise or they will fall into debt, go hungry, go cold or go bankrupt and lose their homes. This is the reality of life. There is no avoiding it. That is what is going to happen. As a result there is an extraordinary unity amongst working people demanding action, including now a call for a general strike.
Second, the Tories are in total disarray, with the two leadership election candidates suggesting that their task is to get the country out of the mess that the governments of which they were members have gotten us into.
Third, as a result getting people to agree that we need a different government should be easy.
But then we have to take the Starmer factor into account. Let's just look at yesterday. The rail unions are on strike, led by the extraordinary Mick Lynch, who has an innate ability to explain economics (and other realities) which almost no interviewer knows how to handle. That is helped by the fact that his case is a simple one. He is saying a 4% pay rise is inadequate when the cost of living is increasing by 10% or more, and prices will not go down again even if inflation does sometime in 2023. And he is right, of course.
Lynch is also right to ask questions about why it is that working people are being picked on when rents, profits and interest are all still being paid, without question arising as to why they too should not be squeezed.
If Starmer was seeking to represent labour as leader of the Labour Party you would have thought these might be positions that he should support. But no. He says it's his job as prime minister in waiting to support the management in disputes and not to side with labour, because he will be the manager if he (ever) secures office.
It's a crass argument. Firstly, that ignores the fact that he has to win office. At this moment that means he has to show he is on the side of those who are going to be crushed by the coming winter. They are his voter base. He cannot afford to alienate them.
Second, it's a crass argument because part of his pitch should be that the current management have got their negotiating position wrong and that he would not in any way have supported the offer now being made to the rail workers, which is so obviously unfair. Saying so is exactly what his job should involve.
And third, what this reveals is a man who thinks he can only become prime minister by appealing to small-minded right-wingers. He is indifferent about representing anyone from the left, or what they stand for. Maybe, as a lot of Labour MPs and some Labour peers are saying, that is because he really does not know what life is like for anyone but those who are on the right wing of politics. Or maybe it's because he really does think that all politics is now on the right anyway, and the left does not matter. And maybe it is because he just does not care as he wants to govern from the right, come what may. To be honest, I can't tell.
But what I do know is that a leader of the Labour Party who has forgotten what the party is meant to represent, just as he has forgotten that it is his job to oppose. He also seems intent on alienating a great many of those who might support him. That makes him look a pretty dismal failure at his job.
No wonder the Labour Party has no one out on the morning media round as I write this. Starmer's actions are indefensible. I suspect his shadow cabinet know it. It's hard to see how he can continue like this.
What a mess.
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:
Buy me a coffee!
Excellent analysis.
If it’s Starmer’s real job to see that Labour doesn’t win the next election then he’s doing really well. I’ve suspected him of being an Establishment plant since he first went up against Boris at PMQs and won gushing praise from the Guardian’s John Crace for his performance, the Guardian being the sheep in wolf’s clothing that it is. No matter how bad the Tory candidates, then, no matter how little they appeal to the electorate, it’s Starmer’s job to be worse, to appeal to them even less.
He’s doing a great job.
I agree with you, he’s a cuckoo in the nest and the sooner people realise that the better. Maybe it will only become obvious to some when he gets given a seat in the HoL and sits on the Tory benches…
You’re absolutely correct Bernie. We’ve got a cuckoo of our own in Scotland in the shape of Sturgeon, she’s doing her best to sabotage independence. Between her and Starmer I’m politically homeless. All opposition parties have never had such an open goal than at the moment and they’re really cocking it up.
One could be forgiven for wondering how he could continue at all.
Absolutely spot-on; neatly put. Perhaps worth mentioning that Starmer’s opposition (I use the term loosely) does not extend to Scotland where a succession of Labour grandees have been advocating tactical voting to get nats out in the full knowledge that that will inevitably let Tories in. Not one of those grandees has faced any criticism whatsoever from the party. Is this of any significance across the UK as a whole? Certainly….Labour support for the Scottish Tories made no practical difference for Johnson, but for May it made the difference between victory and defeat; how different would our situation be if May had not been PM and therefore not been able to pursue a pointlessly hard and aggressive brexit policy at the behest of the ERG?
…..and there is no other credible source of opposition with as much as a cat in Hades chance of forming a government.
Bleak, isn’t it. If Labour continues in this vein even Liz Truss could win the next election for the Tories simply by default.
Richard, Hear hear! How stupid can it get?
Sadly, I see both major parties as deserts for reasoning or new ideas.
In each party, on the one side, there are those who know they are right, and that their job is to silence those who disagree. On the other side, there are those who think the job of a party is to tell voters what they want to hear, whether or not it is true.
In the Conservative party, I think the head-bangers have won fairly decisively. In Labour, the fight for control is ongoing between the head-bangers and the sail-trimmers.
Nobody recognises that in a 2-party system, each party must be a coalition. Nobody can see that there might be a role for new ideas, discussion or uncertainty.
Which is why blogs like yours are so important if new thinking is ever to be hammered out.
And I hope that I have written enough comments on other issues telling you that you are wrong.
Spot on in every particular.
The defensive line that Starmer has an appallingly biased media to deal with and look what they can do, e.g. Corbyn, is simple defeatism. That media reality just is so, and the only means of overcoming it is with a narrative so popular, and with the means of becoming relentlessly so, e.g. based on the economic realities of the situation, that the common truth will wipe away the right’s media advantage. Even snakes like Murdoch will eventually prefer to be seen to back a winner – and then, of course, try to distort and undermine them.
First – and never second or third – must come the command of the genuine, and growing, wave of dissatisfaction and anger. Without that, in present circumstances, nothing can be achieved at all.
Absolutely agree: Starmer is an utterly dismal failure as leader of the party of labour. But (particularly after the publication of the Forde Report) his leadership of the party can be understood when viewed as an entirely cynical and craven set of actions: his strong left pitch during his election campaign to head the party followed by his immediate reversal on every pledge made is not the behaviour of an honest individual or that of someone who acts in good faith. The continued weaponisation of antisemitism (yes it exists in the Labour Party – putting it into perspective, this fell under Corbyn’s leadership to the same levels as found in the LDs and far lower than is found among the Tories) as a thoroughly despicable and under-hand line of attack against his perceived political rivals. And of course, there is his repellent use of Corbyn as his whipping boy. I appreciate that Corbyn had and has his faults (I’m sure that Richard has at least a few pennies worth of thoughts on this matter) but let’s be honest: the majority of the PLP (including Starmer) spent the entirety of his leadership working relentlessly to prevent him from enacting some pretty reasonable policies of moderate wealth redistribution, power re-balancing and properly funding a desperately needed green new deal while empowering the demented Tory zealots in Westminster to continue unabated with their economic and social vandalism. Thousands of avoidable deaths through Tory callousness and greed during the pandemic, millions more now needlessly thrown into poverty; Starmer and his supporters are as knowingly complicit in these acts of aggression as any sitting Tory MP. And that is completely unforgivable.
The take away is that Starmer is not only a terrible leader for a party that is meant to represent the interests of labour but he is this with predetermined intent. And again, this attitude seems prevalent among most of the PLP. The mendacity of these glibly self-labelled ‘moderate’ (that in itself is ghoulishly dishonest) Labour MPs is apparently only comparable to their aversion to sincere intentions or desire to change the country for the better. Their centrism is a political cul-de-sac and the neoliberal agenda it supports has demonstrably been proven an abject failure for all but the tiny number of the ultra-wealthy. The current squalor of the Labour Party is the miserably predictable result entirely of the PLPs own making. Starmer is merely one head of the hydra.
I can’t disagree with that. And after 40+ years in the Labour Party, loyally supporting each and every leader, I can be suspended and dismissed from the party for agreeing. For that reason I am writing this under pseudonym. What have we come to?
Staggering isn’t it?
I could not agree more.
Starmer is the Establishment’s man in the Labour Party. This latest action confirms it for me. My view is that when you consider the dominating orthodoxies concerning money and taxation, all the parties have reached a consensus about the artificial limitations of political action. There is nothing they think they can do for us.
The clue to this orthodoxy is what I hear being said: the story is that the railways got support for Covid and somehow that money has to be ‘paid back’. Therefore the Treasury now want their pound of flesh and are leaning on the providers to make ‘efficiencies’ – during a cost of living crisis of all things!!!!
The last bit is what really makes Starmer a very bad actor indeed.
And reifies once again the mal-intent of the Tory party who are still even now trying to finish the austerity they started in 2010 which really is just an excuse to break the public sector once and for all.
Something deep in this country is driving all this. The Tory party, Lib- Dems and Labour are all in on it.
The politicians have given in to the market. We are on our own and have been for some time. You can forget about balancing the benefits fairly – this is ‘winner takes all’ thinking and I guarantee our politicians just see this all as career enhancement.
Well said. I have thought long and hard about Starmer. The exact mode of his failure still eludes me. He seems detached from his natural supporters. The pasting he took in Liverpool was remarkable. He simply froze. His expression was a mixture of terror and disdain. Only the intervention of a minder prevented further embarrassment. Yet he has the same dead-eyed instinct to climb the political tree as any Tory. In his own pathetic way he is quite ruthless. He sees a pathway to power and he follows it unblinkingly.
I’m becoming more convinced that he was never really a Labour Party man. His route to power came courtesy of the legal profession, not the trade unions. His instincts are conservative. I think Starmer has done incredible harm to the party. Its apparent lead in the polls is not to be trusted. It will evaporate quickly, exposing the shameful void in policy Starmer has left behind. He has disillusioned his supporters and turned off new recruits. The thought persists in my mind that he is so much like a Tory he may actually be one. What a coup it would be if you were a Tory strategist to get your own man to head up the opposition? Starmer does nothing to dispel this thought.
Its very disappointing because nothing appears to be in the national interest anymore and they don’t even pretend that they have a view of what is.
The greatest generation gave the country so much to build on and perhaps it’s inevitable that it might decay and crumble under its children’s stewardship.
How do you think the baby boomers will change their mind? What is it that makes them back a bunch of criminal’s because surely they know.
Sorry, but I’m a baby boomer. None of my family backed the government and we do not back Starmer now that he has shown his true colours. I hate it when people just group whole demographics together like that without thinking first about the insults they might be making.
I left the labour party because of Blair. I rejoined, then left it again when Starmer said that he would not support renationalisation of utilities. I filled in a questionnaire this morning and had no hesitation in saying I would back Green next election.
Right on, Jenw.
I’m so depressed and disappointed by Starmer.
Up to now I’d been telling myself that even though my position has always been more “Corbyn type policies with a competent leader”, it was so important to get the Tories out that I had to live with him because he was at least a competent leader. Now…we still have to get the Tories out, but for what? No green new deal, no common ownership, no PR…. Rachel Reeves as Chancellor imposing austerity….will they be supporting the odious Rwanda policy next???
I guess Starmer reckons that winning the next GE means:
1. Appealing to the owners of the right wing press esp DM, DE, Sun …
2. Appealing to voters in the centre & centre right by shifting rightwards as the Tory Party shift rightwards.
But he appears less concerned that this could lose him votes form the left.
” It’s hard to see how he can continue like this.”
Well, his front bench could resign en masse & who knows, we could have two sets of elections for party leader running.
It will not of course happen. Imbecilies such as Reeves support Sir St…. (feel free to fill in as appropriate) and do the other nodding dogs.
The route forward on all this is tactical voting at the next election to ensure that Liebore do not get a majority & are forced to work with the L-Dems – the latter, if they have any sense will demand a whipped bill on PR & then if they have any sense, once it has been passed they will call a vote of no confidence & thus an election. PR will cause the moderate wing of the tories to merge with the B.Liarites, Significant parts of the current troy-vulture party will turn into the quasi-fascists that they are becoming and Real Labour will emerge to represent the increasing numbers of working poor, homeless etc etc. The Greens, hopefully will finally get a shout.
All that said, given the collossal rise in energy costs, something will have to give – neither party has any idea what to do, which opens up ground for those that do.
That’s quite a scenario. And tbf one that a political leader should already have thought of and be planning for because our political system is no longer capable of handling the realities of how and who people vote for. If we like minded voters dont take it into our own hands, agitate for change and vote as you suggest, we only have ourselves to blame.
As you & others will have seen, I work with elements within the European Commission on the subject of electricity market reform. Last week, our trajectory (on elec market reform) was confirmed by the Greek gov’ who published a “non-paper” (don’t ask) for the recent EU energy council meeting which contained 99% of what we had been saying plus some details on how to operationalise our proposals. Strikes me that we have a partial solution to ultra high elec prices (& gas prices could simply be capped – a la Spain). The open issue is: with what group of politicos could one cooperate? I have been in communication with the Lying-Dems – who seem sensible (all those without power always do – exception Liebore). In my view, energy this winter will be the key. Liebore & the tory-vultures don’t have a clue &, frankly neither do any of the players in energy. National Grid’s recent proposals (so-called elec market reform) are basically business-as-usual (BAU) plus a little bit. Pathetic does not even enter into it.
Energy, lack thereof, will be the fulcrum, this could be weaponised by those that know how to do it. Anybody interested?
I’m interested in who you’d prefer to form the next government, Mike. Given your evident contempt for the three main national parties – “Lying-Dems” and “Liebor” and the “tory-vultures” – are you hoping for a Green government, perhaps? With their one MP? Or have you given up because they are all as bad as each other, and you’d be content for the Conservatives to remain in power for another five years? What is the realistic alternative?
[…] Starmer’s mess Tax Research UK […]
I think he is in a bit of a pickle tbh.
He knows that Labour under Corbyn (rightly or wrongly) suffered massive reputational damage amongst a significant proportion of i) the powerful, and ii) the electorate. He also knows that one of the biggest political issues, Brexit, is politically toxic like nuclear waste and he can’t tackle that either, he has to stay far away from it.
He knows that the Tories and their massive press support can throw whatever they want at Labour and much of it sticks. He has to keep a very clean nose in policy terms to not hand them a very easy and crass win time and time again. The Tories and the press have relentlessly been trying to make the issue of strikes attributable to Labour. They know that talking about the 70’s and 80’s carries weight with a lot of people who actually will vote, and so anything said by Starmer which is broadly in support of the industrial action will suddenly become a massive onslaught of blaming Labour for everything. The Transport Minister hasn’t even bothered to meet with the Unions. He’s staying out of it, he wants it to be someone else’s problem. Labour will do just fine.
I hope that there will come a point, where Labour take on a bit of a spine and adopt some actual beneficial policies, instead of opting to be competent Tory-lite without corruption. I don’t know if that point will come.
If I were in his position now, I think I would try and walk a tightrope of not explicitly supporting the industrial action, but recognising the validity of their cost of living concerns and pressuring the government to take action to solve the problem one way or another. I think, in that situation, I would probably try and divert the issue a bit onto cost of living concerns and the government’s inaction there. You could instead talk about reducing energy costs for ordinary people instead of tackling the issue of strikes head on.
Either way it is a very sad state of affairs, but let’s not forget that Ed Miliband lost an election and was seen as being too left wing. He was nothing of the sort.
Unfortunately that is the situation we are in, where a fundamentally undemocratic electoral system acts as a straight jacket on political representation. The only way to better politics is electoral reform and PR. And honestly, the only possible prospect I see of that scale of reform any time soon is if Scotland were to gain independence, forcing the remaining elements of the UK to take a serious look at constitutional reform.
I’ll put you right on that first point: Starmer and the majority of the PLP were the biggest perpetrators of the Labour Party’s terrible ’19 GE result. From the day Corbyn was elected these people acted entirely for the party’s electoral defeat – hence the shock and dismay among so many Labour MPs as the results rolled in during the night of the ’17 GE. The Forde Report has now unequivocally confirmed this. As for policy, his job is not to pander to the owners of the Tory red tops but to present unambigious policy and argue for it. And by attempting to be both supportive and against industrial action Starmer only comes across as duplicitous and unstrustworthy but that is also (according to Survation and YouGov polls) a confirmed assessment of the man by a clear majority of electorate. Only the disingenuous and foolish applaud triangulation as smart operating.
However, agree with you regarding PR, although that most definitely excludes STV which simply moves the locus of bias and is arguably not even a genuine form of PR. Electoral reform could be used to garner support across the political spectrum; single-issue campaigns appear to be highly effective (lets not mention the ‘B’ word) and could potentially strike a resonant note with voters *if* Starmer can drop the cheap Blair tribute act and behave like a serious politician just for once. I won’t wait with bated breath for any of this to materialise from within the ranks of the increasingly shabby Labour Party. The Greens are calling for public ownership of energy, rail and water, support for the unions and a strong set of policies for dealing with climate change. They’ll have my vote come the next GE.
The PLP played their part but the great dividing lines were intergenerational. I read an article that stated: based on the voting demographic of GE19. If voters over 60 were not allowed to vote; Labour would have won by 5%.
The reality for any LOTO is to understand what makes people want to deny the opportunities afforded to them to their Grandchildren.
I’m just not buying it that the hostility from within the PLP towards Corbyn was the decisive factor in Labour losing that election. It will not have helped. But even with them on board he would have lost decisively.
Corbyn was just far too easy for the Tories and the rightwing press (and the BBC) to smear. Lots of people perceive him as a sympathiser of the IRA, Russia, Iran etc etc. They see him as a communist, a traitor etc etc.
I am not suggesting any of that is true – far from it. But that was the perception that stuck with a lot of the electorate. The shit stuck far too easily.
Politics is a game of strategy. Corbyn was a dream for Tory strategists. There were just too many open goals. I say that as someone who voted Labour at the last election and was supportive of his objectives, whilst also critical of his strategy and suitability for the role.
I think Corbyn would have lost as well
He simply was not the right leader
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/sam-tarry-becomes-first-labour-mp-to-be-sacked-for-supporting-workers-330816/
Unions are ashamed of Starmer’s stance, too.
The problem with ‘electoralism’ – win at any cost politically – is that the opposition is obliged to mimic the party in power and become government-lite.. As this results from aligning with the agenda presented at the last GE, it means the opposition has to cherry pick the current government’s approach and policies. They are always playing catch up.
Electoralism means the opposition then ceases to represent a block of its own supporters in order to appeal to enough of the current government’s voters to gain power.
Following a ‘win at any cost’ electoral strategy then marginalises the core support that identifies with and sustains the party.
An arithmetical calculation that this core support has nowhere else to go (but abstain), so any minor losses will be more than counterbalanced by gaining government voters from the last GE, is at best hopeful and and at worst cynical guesswork.
Any party with a distinctive identity, core set of beliefs and philosophy ought not be adopting those of the opposition to succeed electorally, but be capable of speaking to the voting public, and reasoning and arguing their own case for doing things differently.
This is a very conspicuous black hole in Labour’s current strategy.
If they have particular policies which are highly unpopular then they might consider dropping them until such time as the zeitgeist allows, but that does not mean dumping a whole series of broadly popular policies and priorities.
This is the position the Labour Party is now in.
They are aware of strong public support for any group seeking cost of living increases and are not conned by the fear factor of wage cycle inflation.
They know that nationalisation of core infrastructural monopolies is very popular electorally as well as logical economically and organisationally.
Labour also knows that there is widespread public fear – across the electorate – of privatisation of the NHS.
The pendulum has already swung in Labour’s direction regarding public services.
So why the fear ?
I am profoundly depressed by the narrowing of the options for most UK voters to Liberalism and Toryism. That there is no electoral alternative offered to Thatcherite neoliberalism, ought to be a matter of shame for the Labour Party and especially Starmer and Reeves. Keynesianism is hardly Marxist, after all, just a more human faced form of capitalism.
I do not accept this is true
Corbyn got the balance wrong, I know
But there is enormous demand fir non Tory policy
They are just not delivering it
Have you read the Forde report? Corbyn might have won the 2017 election against May if it hadn’t been for internecine attacks.
Imagine what the country would be like now if he had.
Maybe he didn’t understand economics as you say it, but I’m sure he would have listened, unlike Johnson or Starmer, Truss or Sunak.
I’m now a member of the NHAP, because I think we need to save the NHS above anything else. I agree with them that everything else that is happening affects our health. This is because I can’t be a member of the labour party any more.
He did no listen
That was the problem
There may be a calculation that the left wing have no where else to go, and the benefit of gathering some votes by trimming to the right outweighs any losses.
That may be a mistake.
Left-leaning voters have choices – the Green party, for example, or a new party may emerge, as En Marche! has in France. (As a further example, despite its involvement with the original Labour Representation Committee, the RMT is no longer affiliated with Labour, and supports TUSC.) Or these voters may just give up and stay at home. Either result ends up splitting the vote, harming Labour’s changes when they need to get out all of their vote, given the way First Past The Post has historically favoured the Conservatives. And it harms the activist base. Who will be doing the fundraising and canvassing and leafletting if the activists are turned off?
Boring managerialism will butter no parsnips. Is Starmer even capable of presenting an attractive vision for the future?
Perhaps he should read the 1997 manifesto. http://www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1997/1997-labour-manifesto.shtml
“I believe in Britain. It is a great country with a great history. The British people are a great people. But I believe Britain can and must be better: better schools, better hospitals, better ways of tackling crime, of building a modern welfare state, of equipping ourselves for a new world economy.
I want a Britain that is one nation, with shared values and purpose, where merit comes before privilege, run for the many not the few, strong and sure of itself at home and abroad.
…
I want to renew faith in politics through a government that will govern in the interest of the many, the broad majority of people who work hard, play by the rules, pay their dues and feel let down by a political system that gives the breaks to the few, to an elite at the top increasingly out of touch with the rest of us.
And I want, above all, to govern in a way that brings our country together, that unites our nation in facing the tough and dangerous challenges of the new economy and changed society in which we must live. I want a Britain which we all feel part of, in whose future we all have a stake, in which what I want for my own children I want for yours.”
As my wife put it, she is very relieved that to vote ABC we have to vote LibDem here as to vote Labour under Starmer would be increasingly hard
They assumption that the left has nowhere to go is not a good one
Except that is for the Tories who could win heavily from this
My south east constituency has been mostly Conservative for more than a century until 2019, except for 1945 and 1997, though often with a strong challenge from the Liberals/Lib Dems or Labour, and has been almost a three way marginal at times. We now have a Lib Dem MP and I expect she will be reelected, but there is no way the Lib Dems can hope to achieve a majority.
Realistically, the Labour needs a good showing if the Conservatives are to lose.
One could be forgiven for thinking that Starmer has been bought by the Tories by promises of a sinecure in the House of Lords. Of course in reality that would be an impossibility, wouldn’t it, as it would requre the go ahead from the PM of the day. Perhaps he’s a sleeper for the Tories with eventual enoblement for services to politics. It’s certainly a mystery how he managed to become leader of her Majesty’s loyal opposition. Perhaps it would be kinder just to say that the guy in an enigma wrapped up in himself.
It’s no enigma how he became leader. He made lots of promises that he has now reneged on. It was going to be an inclusive party under him. Over 100,000 members have either left or been kicked out of the party by him and his cohorts. He promised to stick up for the unions and renationalise utilities. We all know what’s happened there.
Andy MacDonald resigned because Starmer went back on his promise of a £15 an hour pay review. The party is nearly bankrupt because he has gone back on so many promises. We didn’t expect all that within two to three years.
I think the problem with Starmer is very simple. To win a General Election under FPTP Labour need to win Tory middle England seats.
Let’s face the facts. Brexit showed that there was a sizeable proportion of the Labour Northern vote That wanted out of the EU. They deserted the party and voted Tory. The Red Wall collapsed. Chances are that having had a dose of Tory reality, many of them will now come back, but it’s not guaranteed. In Scotland, Starmer is still fighting yesterdays battles trying to win back votes from the SNP. Lab traditionally did well in Scotland, but are now dead and buried north of the border. The 40 or so seats that Lab used to pick up in Scotland is now a handful.
Under FPTP the main old two party battlegrounds are now middle England. In those seats many Tory voters are probably more inclined to vote Lib Dem than Labour. So, to put it simply, Starmer is trying to come across as a moderate pair of safe hands to try and get those middle England votes.
I’ve said before that FPTP is no longer Labour’s friend and with the next Tory boundary changes it will be worse. Unfortunately, Starmer seems to live in hope that the two party system is still alive and that maybe one more go will preserve it. That’s why when he’s questioned on an electoral alliance with the LibDems he denies it and why in Scotland he is still fighting battles that he can’t win against the SNP, rather than looking for an electoral pact with them.
He’s an old school FPTP two party system politician who has yet to smell the coffee that FPTP in the UK is now basically delivering a Tory dictatorship.
The trouble is that for Lab trying to appeal to those Tory middle England seats means watering down any radicalism. It is why despite the 4 horseman of the modern economic apocalypse, Brexit, covid, Putin’s War and rampant inflation, Starmer offers nothing accept fiscal restraint to out Tory the Tories.
Despite the fact that Truss struggles to find two brain cells to rub together, she will probably easily beat Starmer in the next General Election, simply because like all Tories she will buy votes in the election year.
I fear that it might take one or two more big election defeats for Labour to finally wake up and realise that FPTP is no longer their friend and even if they do win, they will not be radical. They will merely be keeping the seats of Government warm until the Tories win again.
But opinion polls show there is nothing radical about being on the side of public services, and even many public sector employees
Nor with dealing with the cost of living crisis
I have no idea what is driving Labour away from where people appear to be
Very well put MarP. As a Compass member, I was in a Zoom call on Tuesday, where they had Stella Creasey along as a contributor. Much as I admire her in some ways, she made it clear she didn’t support Compass’ idea of a progressive alliance, and insisted that the only way forward was with Labour. Same old labour tribalism.
I’ve read Neal’s own opinion piece in the guardian today, and he has no time for Starmer’s labour either now. No vision, no courage, no real plan. Terrified of the right’s attacks, so refusing to put forward any real progressive alternative to the neoliberal consensus. No MMT, no cooperation with other parties, no renationalisation of any key utilities despite the evidence of market failure and excessive profits at the expenses of the rest of society.
New new labour then. Desperately triangulating to the right to try to get swing voters to vote for them whilst telling left wing voters they’ve got no choice but labour due to FPTP. But who left FPTP in place? New labour! Who refuses to work in coalitions which are the norm under PR? labour!
Things are not the same as in 1997. We must have radical, bold action to replace neoliberalism and tackle the climate disaster. The market won’t do it, the state must take the lead. There’s no time left to avoid catastrophe, both environmental, and societally. And yey the appalling tories have apparently learnt nothing from the last 40 years and keep on with their small state low tax mantra, and labour have learnt nothing from the last 20.
I’d vote labour tactically if they were leading a progressive ABC alliance, but if not they can forget it. I’ll vote green, or register my rejection of FPTP by not voting at all.
If everybody who said they can’t vote labour while Starmer is in charge voted Green, The Green Party might stand a better chance of more MPs.
I keep getting emails from the Coop Party, but I can’t join them because you have to agree to Labour rules. Can’t do that while Starmer is in charge.
If there was a separate Coop Party, there would be no problem.
It’s almost unbearable to see the far-left eating its own once again. Starmer has one job; the others follow. He needs to get Labour into power. If that doesn’t happen, no one from the centre, centre-left or far-left will get anything of what they believe this country needs.
So the far-left set out to destroy their only chance. I really don’t understand your thinking Richard.
He is not from the left
Let’s not pretend
I’m with Pippa. This is all rather familiar and all rather depressing.
One thing the Conservatives have traditionally been good at is winning elections and retaining power. The government gets to implement its policies and the opposition does not.
For some reason, many on the left seem to prefer fighting each other to winning elections. Starmer is far from perfect. But let’s be clear: Corbyn was also far from perfect; he lost twice, and there is a good chance he would lose again.
Good luck (a) finding an ideologically pure candidate who (b) can win the leadership of the Labour party and (c) then persuade enough people to vote for them to win an election.
They can at least try not to alienate everyone to the left of Ken Clarke
I am being told by a lot of people that because they are clueless as to what he is about – especially on strikes – they p[refer the LDs
Maybe I talk to too many teachers
Pippa, is Compass a far left organisation then? Are all those putting themselves at risk of arrest for XR, Insulate Now! etc members of the far left?
Unions going on strikes due to massive real term cuts in their members’ pay, are they far left? Whose definition of far left are you using?
Pretty well agree Richard.
Expected Starmer to be pretty pragmatice – consistent with trying to get elected by finessing the press etc. That could have included pragmatic public ownership of energy, water etc – as in Europe, and civilised dialogue with all factions in the party. Also hoped he would be pepared to be interested in exploring new ways of operating / talking – eg cutting across the taxes+’borrowing’ =spending mantras – educating himself , and the electorate and the media at the same time.
Ironic that the Tory factions and Johson almost dont care what whacky ideas they come up with – confident they are the inevitable party of government.
Starmer seems to have got the worst of all worlds – no ideas, timidity but control freakery, no inspiration – scared to be explicit about whats right and whats wrong. Darent state the need for wage increases linked with an economic analysis that refutes the inevitable wage price spiral argument being used to justify all the pain should be on earners rather than renters/profiteers.
It is this ability to put himself in the very worst positions that is staggering
I do think they really need to make a point of refuting the idea that they were to blame for 2008 and austerity.
Labour’s finances when they left office were not unsustainable at all. Austerity was not necessary, it was a destructive ideological project to shrink the state and we’re paying for it now.
Liam Byrne and his stupid note did not help matters.
As Starmer has been making the argument recently that the Tories have been reckless with public finances, that would seem to tie in well.
Agreed
Sir Starmer is working for the Wealth Extraction Ruling Class.
They have a plan.
Kitty Jones cited your insight on that plan, back in 2013.
https://politicsandinsights.org/2013/06/26/jp-morgan-wants-europe-to-be-rid-of-social-rights-democracy-employee-rights-and-the-right-to-protest
Every element of that plan has been put into practice. Brexit was part of that plan.
The Extraction Class understand they are culpable and liable for claims for reparations for the environmental harm, for climate disruption, for environmental degradation, due to their denial campaigns, their gaslighting, their masking of where responsibility lies through ‘carbon foot print’ nonsense and ‘plastic recycling’ both of which were designed to allow them to extract wealth and delay action.
The Extraction class also understand that democratic legislatures driven by workers aware of all this will demand industry prevents all the harms it causes – in effect to pay the externalised costs that are the basis of their Wealth Extraction.
They understand this will eviscerate their Wealth Extraction, and without that Wealth, their political dominance will fade, because they have no ideological ground for their dominance other than their ability to spend vast amounts of money on influence – media, think tanks, online political grooming, wars and mercenaries.
For the Extraction class, retaining and enhancing their power is the name of the game – and they do not care what the costs are to workers, communities and the vulnerable..
Blair represented their interests. Labour – as a party and a movement – failed to throw him out, failed to indict him in spite of the weight of evidence of his war crimes.
Sir Starmer persecuted Assange precisely because Assange presented some of the evidence, not all of it. Just enough to lay bare the lie that that war was in any way just.
There is no such thing as a good war. Ordinary people do not start wars. Workers do not start wars. Wealth Extraction Ruling Class start wars as part of their dominance strategy, wrapped in flags to enrol the patriotic into their plans.
Labour MPs shouted ‘we must Support the troops, our boys and girls in uniform’ once they had crossed the border, irrespective of the known lies. Gaslighting, manipulation and grift.
Labour is at the end of this road – it must reclaim social material justice as it’s central task, or go to the wall. The call for emotional loyalty to a party that has caused so much harm since 1997, claiming that ‘Labour did good things’, does not correct the harm caused. And claiming that Labour is at least better than the Conservatives is gaslighting. That bar is a low as it can get.
The Parliamentary party ought to rout Starmer and everyone associated with the campaign against Jeremy Corbyn – otherwise it’s akin to The Vatican and how it deals with the abuse of children within it’s care and sphere of influence.
200,000 plus horrific covid fatalities, 1.5 million cases of long covid – all on Starmers watch as LOTO – He did nothing to prevent that degree of harm. he actively supported the tory government.
I’m appalled, really.
And to those who rattle on about ‘winning middle England’ and advise ignoring all of this to gain power, you are gaslighting us.
I am not convinced by your language
There are better ways to make claims
Mick Lynch proves it
Fair comment.
I agree.
The mystery for me is not Starmer, it is that the Union’s do not use their control of the NEC to sack him.
2017 revealed (to the horror of the establishment and the Labour right) that the left could win. The Labour right – if not a majority of the PLP – chose a Tory victory over that possibility.
The Labour Party could not continue as the broad church it once was after this betrayal. The Blairites (Starmer is simply a tool) have ‘gotten their revenge in first’ and sought to remodel the party. Stalin would be proud. Indeed, Labour may drift to the right of the Tories given the Tories are gaining ground among sections of the electorate previously seen as core Labour. We’ve seen such realignments before in the US with Democrats and Republicans.
The only group who can stop them are the Unions. So why don’t they? Soon it will be too late.
I don’t think the unions can sack Starmer. They can ballot their members about supporting the party, but only MPs can sack Starmer. That’s why he is taking away the whip from so many of them, and having his own people put in for election in the NEC and for MPs.
Ian Byrne is being deselected now, and he won MP of the year last year because of his constituency work in Liverpool. Apsana Begum is another one who Starmer doesn’t want in parliament.
I believe the NEC has Ultimate control of the Labour party under the current rules.
That ‘control’ could, for instance, be exercised by expelling from membership any MP they so chose. Only in that way can they return control of the Party from what amounts to a rogue PLP leadership.
The time for trying to keep the Labour party together is gone. The only question now is which wing of the party inherits the brand and structure of the party. Currently it appears only the Blairites are ruthless enough to do so.
I can’t believe we are tolerating a leader who is not doing his job. When is there going to be a vote of no confidence?
He is, perhaps, not as far-left as many posting on here Richard (July 29 2022 at 3:08 pm). Apparently, there are no other Labour supporters but the far-left as far as such posters are concerned.
Extremists never win, except by deception as this “conservative” government has done. They are too few and thankfully so. If you want a Labour government you will have to accept that there are roughly 75% in the middle and 25% at the extremes, and you have to share that 25% with the extreme right.
Do you want to win and make it a better country for all, or are you happy to be forever shouting from the sidelines?
Please do not call me an extremist
I am a social democrat chartered accountant with a social conscience who wants to better the lot of people in this country, which Starmer will not do with his policies
What is extreme about that?
I think you have fallen for the ‘established wisdom’ that
a) Britain has a ‘naturally conservative electorate’.
b) that anyone who challenges this is ‘far left’.
Neither are true. 2017 (before we got to our current sorry state) put paid to the first myth.
Richard (and I suspect most posting here) is evidence against the second.
What unites those posting here (I suspect – I cannot talk for others) is a respect for international law and institutions / a concern for our collective future / an abhorrence of economic and political thinking that blindly advocates simple / easy / patriotic solutions.
Perhaps it’s time you recognised that the current Labour leadership has fallen under the spell of neo-liberal extremist thinking that will plunge all of us into a world of conflict and despair.
Agreed
Why is it that anyone criticising Starmer is far-left and destroying the party but the PLP and right wing of the labour party who probably prevented a GE Labour win are never at fault?
I didn’t call you an extremist, Richard. You seem very quick to take offence. The two ends of a spectrum are usually known as the extremes. A Social Democrat and not a Labour Party member? The Labour Party voted for its leader and, although entitled to your opinion, none of us can know if this will bring the Labour Party back into power. The reason the appalling right stay in power is because they don’t, publicly, fight like cats in a sack. What happened under the last Labour leader didn’t work.
I’ll leave you in peace now and go and nurse my disappointment.
I criticized Corbyn
He did not get economics
But Starmer is worse
My role is to say so
To say I am feeling disappointed after ready these posts puts it mildly. I thought I was learning about MMT from an academic. This is the sort of nastiness you can find anywhere on the internet. I am now wondering if MMT is just a con. I hope it isn’t.
Politely, stop behaving like a troll
Pippa
MMT is not a con. So stay with it.
It is disappointing I agree that we have to say things about the leader of the opposition given that we still have after 12 years+ of Tory incompetence, a Tory government.
There are plenty of people willing to vote Labour without really it must be said asking themselves just how different if at all they are from the Tories. Some think that the only way to get a better Government is just to get into power. This means not ruffling any feathers to get in. I come across these people all of the time and find them the most frustrating of all. Then they sit there wondering why things are the same.
Your description though of these grumbles as being from the ‘far left’ is far from accurate. This is not a far left site by any stretch of the imagination Pippa. I think that is was mistake to say that and it has caused offence.
The far left believes in much of the orthodox economics the centre left, far right or just right believes in. The only difference being that the far-left wants to tear it all down whereas the right like things just as they are. The far-left are dependent on the existence of the orthodox economics if only to live to destroy it!! What they want to replace it with has been tried already and failed.
Here we are are more heterodox in our approach and we see a much more balanced involvement – a mixture of state and markets with the state intervening in market created distortions and monopolies and behalf of democracies and their peoples. This is not what Starmer’s Labour stands for at all.
Basically Pippa it’s down to you and what you want, right?
Do you want a Labour party hobbled by the rich Establishment that pledges once again to keep to Tory narratives of how the country should be or do want something more like what happened under Clem Attlee after the war – a country that believed in helping its people live well by making sure there was enough money for everyone to make that happen?
MMT is about making sure that everyone has enough money. But no-one – especially in Starmer’s Labour wants to talk about that do they?
I can assure you that the contemporary Labour are very, very far away from the latter vision. They have literally given up. They have accepted the big lie that they have no control over the money it in Government can issue and only private profiteers can provide us with a life of any quality.
Huh and what quality eh?!!
Given the shrinkage in wages and the cost of living crises all created by the private sector and this government shrinking wages in the public sector, how an earth can you not expect Labour to say something new about that?
Starmer and Labour have said nothing.
My advice to you is to stick with MMT. Watch some of Richard’s videos – he’s really an engaging fellow and not some ogre. He also takes a lot of flack from people out there who don’t want the alternative approaches to economics and social policy to be known by people like you. They want you under control and him as well. It’s hard.
If you’re not a troll Pippa – then stick around.
The Observer editorial this morning says it is time Starmer did something and praises campaigners who are willing to offer the answers that he refuses to even consider to be required
There is nothing “polite” about suggesting someone is trolling.
I thought this was a blog run by an academic to inform about Tax Policy, where you appear to have done some interesting work. I have called positive attention to your blogs on other forums in the past, and suggested people read about MMT.
Your work on MMT is also informative. On the other hand, your way of expressing your politics seems extreme to someone who supports no party but tries to listen to all views.
This way of debating makes me wonder if MMT is just a far-left extremist’s view of economics balancing extreme capitalism from the far-right. I can understand why you would propose that. However, in my opinion, no extreme can be an answer. They do not seem to work for the advantage of all. Hopefully, when I review what I have learned so far, I will find MMT actually does.
I would not normally offer my opinion, just search for facts. This blog and the replies, however, seem to be only opinions and, sadly, you seem only to want those that agree with you.
I am not a member of a political party
I criticise Starmer for failing – as the Observer notes he is this morning
If your think the Observer far left then you are truly a troll
If you don’t you need to reappraise what you have been saying here
Pippa
But your writing here is ‘just opinions’ too. Is it not?
It just so happens that the your opinions here are outnumbered by our opinions about Starmer whom we see as a failure. The Observer is right to point this out today as I find that many people who are voters even of the soft left and centrist type are simply lost when it comes to saying what Starmer and Labour are currently for.
As for offering ‘brickbats’ – do you know what a brickbat is?
Definition of brickbat
1: a fragment of a hard material (such as a brick)
especially : one used as a missile
2: an uncomplimentary remark
Now, have you actually read any of Richard’s books? Followed his links to well researched material and informed critiques of current thinking in both the Labour party and the Tories?
If you had, then I think you would not use the term ‘brickbat’ – which given the erudition on this site is nothing more than an insult. A bad one. Richard is right – you are trolling.
Now that’s enough please. Thank you.
No, I do not think the Observer is far-left. I like most of the nation, see it as a centrist publication. As you didn’t post a link, I don’t know what the article is about.
The New Statesman quoted Lisa Nandy as saying “I dislike the cults around Blair and Corbyn; one man doesn’t change things”. I’m not sure that is entirely true – Johnson and Corbyn between them, do seem to have allowed us to mover further to the right.
To govern the country and move it forward, you need a team, you need a plan, and you need patience. Just throwing brickbats at one person isn’t helpful, in my opinion.
Read today’s editorial
That is where you find out what the paper thinks
And what they say is civil society has a plan and Starmer has not
Why are you backing the man without a plan?
So what is your plan Richard?
I have published it so many times
Pay attention
He has recently brought out a plan, Richard. I can go online where someone will explain it point by point. That may or may not make people vote Labour. You may or may not agree with it. However, it does exist. Why try to change the truth? I do not mean that rudely; I just don’t understand why you say it.
Starmer does, at least, seem to be aware that he needs more votes than just come from people of your opinion. Your opinion seems to me to be one form of left, Starmers seems to be another. Your view seems, to me, to be farther to the left than his. That does not necessarily make it a bad thing. It is just a way of differentiating it.
Hopefully, if we could get PR, it would not matter. Both the current Conservative Party and Labour Party would split into smaller parties. Rather than having to vote for a ready made coalition – which is what both larger parties are – we would vote for the bits we want. More people voting for your view would get more seats for them. More people wanting the one you don’t like would mean more seats for them. That is democracy.
I am not backing anyone, just asking questions. I do not want or need to be told what to think. I do appreciate what I can learn though.
Thank you, Pilgrim Slight Returns, for your polite post. I will keep looking out for more about MMT. I was surprised by the attack on Starmer rather than more about tax and economics. I now know to stay away from these discussions.
He did not bring out a plan
It was meaningless word salad that said precisely nothing
And meanwhile you just keep on trolling
But in case you want to claim not, tell me why is so left wing about a chartered accountant committed to maintaining a strong private sector?
Try, because your abuse is getting wearing
What does “trolling” mean to you, Richard? I think we have very different views of what it is. I am trying extremely hard not to provoke you. Although I think that may be a lost cause, I am certainly not doing it deliberately. I cannot see why you find my personal views – I’m not trying to persuade anyone – offensive. It is certainly not my intention to make you feel that way.
Starmer did recently bring out a five-point plan. Just because you or others don’t like it or even view it as a “word salad” does not stop a plan from being a plan. Saying he didn’t bring out a plan seems to be a manipulation of the truth – very 1984. Not liking his plan, or waiting to see what comes next accepts it is a plan but you would rather have something else. That seems very reasonable.
Trolling is writing right wing garbage on this site
And you are doing it to support a leader of the Labour Party who is failing the country from my objective, non partisan perspective
You won’t get another chance. Please go and play with your Tory friends
I assume our pension will be increased by the annual inflation rate and that the tax free allowance will be increased also.not the sneaky stagnating of all allowances e.g IHT and all the others
Pensions should
The rest, who knows?
67 varieties of capitalism but the Danish version looks good. Stop billionaires .High taxes . High social spending. No scroungers and no right not to work