I watched Keir Starmer give his 'vision speech' this morning.
My initial reactions were tweeted as follows:
The sound quality throughout this broadcast was dire: Labour really has to get the basics right.
That said: Starmer beat Sunak hands down on presentation.
Content was another issue. On this I noted the following as the speech progressed:
Bluntly the speech was virtually devoid of content, excepting his one big idea, which was around devolution. The premise of this was however o0wrrying. As I noted before he got to the issue:
I should perhaps have added 'existing' before devolution in that second tweet.
As I also noted:
I summarised this saying:
Indisputably this was a better speech than Sunak's, but there were massive issues, ;like these:
In summary, I posted this:
The presentation was vastly better than Sunak's.
And maybe there was a little more substance.
But was this a vision for a government? It fell very, very far short of that.
I will have more to say on what that vision should be soon, I hope.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
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!
The conclusion has to be:
Vote Liebore – get Tory-lite –
Devolving power from Wezzie to local gov without the attendant transfer of resources will mean no change, no libraries re-opened or swimming pools or… the list is long.
I note that no journo ever questions the corner shop narrative – are they really that thick?
Yes
No alarms and no surprises here. Starmer and new New Labour just expect to coast in to power on the basis of not being the Tories. Whereupon the plan is to manage government in much the same way as the Tories. No doubt he is being advised by Mandleson and others that those on the progressive left who find this utterly uninspiring have ‘no where else to go’ and so can be taken for granted. Until that changes expect very little else to change.
If one is honest, it has to be said that this was a speech that was dishonest.
Starmer set out to give the impression that he was going to provide effective and progressive change while using language and evasions which only reveal that he has devised no actual mechanisms for achieving it. The very tame questions, which put him under almost no pressure, immediately revealed that he could neither give straight answers nor convincing ones – perhaps not even to himself. The plainest of examples were on student fees and nurses pay.
The speech was also economically illiterate, see this website passim – and it never even mentioned, let alone sought any remedies for, the democratic defecits – I emphasise the plural here, e.g. not only FPTP but in relation to Scotland and even the House of Lords – by which the so-called ‘U’ K is disfigured and as a result misgoverned. The vagueries of increased ‘devolution’ stank, in their lack of parallel economic thinking/pledges ,of nothing more than blame management. It is becoming increasingly clear that this is a doomed polity tumbling into chaos.
Failed state – or what? It seems that now, only the labelling is left.
Agreed
It’s one thing to be cautious, or to have no political vision, but another thing to not want to engage with, explore , or show any curiosity about, how more resources and finance can be produced to rescue public services.
When Reeves and Starmer are asked the inevitable ‘but where will the money come from?’, or ‘how much will you raise taxes?’ they just run away – they dont even say ‘ we are exploring a whole range of ways – including taxing unearned income, higher incomes, wasteful and unproductive activities, creating new funds etc…we will leave no stone unturned’.
As you say Richard not a programme for government – and certainly not inspiring.
“The Labour leader recently told the New Statesman he carries with him a list of the marginal seats the party needs to turn red to secure victory.
The constituencies are listed in winnable order and Mr Starmer is expected to spend more time visiting these areas in the New Year.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2023-could-keir-starmers-last-28818513
Starmer is just about winning and, I fear, preserving the undemocratic reality of FPTP. Playing by Tory rules.
However, there is one Tory rule that just maybe he is going to use that does work. The Tories always say what they need to say to get power. When elected they do what they like and usually get away with it by stretching the lies a bit more. Nobody voted for what Truss wanted other than Tory members. Nobody voted for what Sunak and Hunt want to do either. It’s the Tory blueprint to power, just say what you have to say to win. It’s not democratic, but there again the UK is far from democratic.
FPTP is the problem. Starmer is desperate to not upset the key middle England voters that he needs to win. He’s also desperate to win back the Red Wall while not upsetting the Brexit supporting Labour voter. His answer to the current crisis with the EU is no better than the Tories, other than to say he would get a better deal. He doesn’t say what that better deal is or why the EU would agree to it.
Labour has no chance in Scotland anymore. The FPTP seats they use to win there are long gone. Tories don’t care about Scotland, any seats won there for them are just the icing on the FPTP cake.
The main election battleground will be Tory middle England and the Red Wall. Would FPTP Tory middle England support a radical Labour alternative? I have my doubts but you never know. I fancy like Blair, Starmer will be Tory lite, but if his winning results in a Tory civil war and party split (possible because of the ERG/Ukip splinter faction in the party), I’m all for it. Better, if only at the margins, than the rubbish we have now.
Devolution worries me in this country.
It’s shorthand for more privatisation and localism if it is not going to be supported financially – which if you are not going to open yer cheque book looks as though is the case. Localism is OK if the locality is vibrant and has capacity but its not the same everywhere – far from it.
It’s shorthand for parliament washing its hands of responsibility – consigning difficult issues like taxation for example to the ‘do not go there’ bucket.
Money has been misallocated in this country – particularly to local services – stripped out even and it has to be put back. It’s misallocation Labour still have not got around their heads around. It’s not just the headline amounts – it’s how the money is divided up that they fail to notice.
Stymied by nature and stymied by name – that Keir and Labour. They don’t satisfy my needs at all. Bye bye.
What struck me forcibly was how quickly the competent Starmerdelivery collapsed, as soon as some fairly basic, straightforward press questions. The confidence was replaced by Sunakian waffle. The Labour Party has bought the Conservative interpetation of the National Debt.
It seems to me the Labour view can easily be challenged in a way everyone can understand; so it can be asked by all opinion sources (media, social media, individuals), until they answer it; because they will certainly not answer it immediately – because I am fairly sure they simply do not know what they believe is the ‘right’ answer (clue; there isn’t one, but there is a wrong answer!).
Two questions for Labour.
Question 1: If Labour believe they cannot spend any more (implicitly, they do not want to increase the budget deficit), then what do they believe is the maximum acceptable National Debt/GDP ratio, expressed as a percentage of GDP?
Question 2: In establishing the denominator in the National Debt/GDP ratio, should QE be consolidated (and cancelled on consolidation), or not?
For reference, according to the House of Commons Library database, at end 2021-22 the figure is 96.7%; and the OBR forecast for 2023-4 is 106.7%. Neither of these figures is, in Briain’s long history as a major economy, an exceptionally high figure. For the 18th century and very often the 19th century we we ran for decades at well over 100%, and thrived; and often it was significantly higher. In the 20th century the constant crises from War to Depression, to Crash meant we were also much higher. By 1945 the figure had reached 250%, and more of our indebtedness was due to the US, effectively in a foreign currency, than is currently is the case; and we still set up the NHS. That is what you do in a crisis. We are in a serious crisis now, and we need nothing; NOTHING approaching these historically high levels.
So where does Labour stand on the Natiional Debt?
I like your questions
I may borrow them
Even better!
Shouldn’t the question be: “WHY do Labour believe they cannot spend any more”?
Yes
No! Because they will simply say the money is not there; they will fall back on the household analogy. Starmer has just done it! Again! The question must be very specific and look behind the curtain of evasion. What is the ceiling on Debt? And it must be a hard quantum. No more evasion. If anyone doesn’t understand what the chosen measure I offered; look it up! Rishard has discussed it often enough here.
If this is how readers here are prepared to operate, forgive me – but I really do despair.
i’ve just thought of (though almost certainly not an original idea i’m sure) a different way to pose the question.
how about this: “What would happen if we did what (seemingly) everyone wants and thinks is a good idea – that is, for the government to run massive surpluses, not spend a penny, and pay off all the debt, in 10 years. All of it. What what would be the consequences?”.
Obviously the consequences would be catastrophic, but maybe that’s one way to get people to think about what they are actually saying, and follow the ideology through to its logical conclusion.
i don’t think i’ve seen any prominent MMT’ers actually pose this out as a question and to work through it – i think it could be quite effective no?
I’ll muse on it
I do use variations on it
They actually attempted another way of paying it off; privatising it. The Tory Government in 1720 set up the South Sea Company in 1720, and used it to privatise the National Debt. It collapsed almost immediately, following a completely bonkers, deeply corrupt, market-driven bubble (everybody invested – the madhouse went to the very top in society and State). It was a giant Ponzi scheme that collapsed in six months. I have, of course drastically conflated here an extraordinary story. Read Thomas Levenson’s quite outstanding book, ‘Money for Nothing’ (2020).
You will learn a great deal more (and with greater clarity), about the basic operating principles of money and debt in that book, than in the books of almost all neo-classical economists.
Correction; set up around 1711 , collapsed 1720. Originally, purportedly a Chartered, mercantilist trading company, intended to capture the South Amercian market and mirror the powerful East India Company. It focused ostensibly on the Spanish slave trade, following the defeat of Spain and Treaty of Utrecht. The company officers knew precisely nothing about the slave trade or South America. But its real purpose was to privatise the National Debt, entirely. That is an endemic Conservative obsession, and persists. The trick the neoliberal school succcessfully deployed, was to deceive the public that Government was just like a household. Tell me, have you ever tried printing your own money – then circulated it? Taxed people you met, along the way?
Thought not.
no matter how dire labour/starmer is, i think chomsky’s approach to voting is logical.
There is absolutely no point not voting if there is a choice and 1 is objectively worse than the other. We can’t change the system, so logically the only thing you can do is ensure the least worst outcome.
Its clearly demonstrable that it would be more preferable for working people for labour to be in power, than the pyschopaths who fill the tory front bench currently. at least some of labour’s MP’s come from relatively normal backgrounds.
they are by far the lesser of 2 evils, so no matter how much people hate labour post-corbyn, they are making things far worse by not voting for labour. Being active and demanding for progress, is not mutually exclusive with voting for a ‘less worse’ party….you can still do both. I really hope the twitterati who go on about how bad starmer is and lament the downfall of corbyn aren’t serious about not voting for labour – because i’ve spent most of my adult life living under the current tory party and if we have to face another 5 years of declining public services its time to get out of here and move to a country that at least has some kind of social contract intact.
I will vote for the ABC candidate – then one with the best hope of ensuring that we will get anything but a conservative in my constituency
But I will still attack Labour because we are in desperate need of a better song to sing (from Educating Rita, I think)
I was discussing Keir Starmer’s speech with my brother and nephew aged 20.
He was of the opinion that Starmer had to keep his powder dry in case the Tories stole them.
Made sense to me,
Sometimes the simplest explanation really is usually the right one.
And we all have to guess what he’ll do, obviously
Sorry that of course should have read
‘In case the Tories stole his ideas’
Starmer needs to provide a vision, so people can see where they will get.
There are some great visions: when JFK announced that the USA would put a man on the Moon before the decade was out. They did, and they “found” the money to do so. And several post-war visions Nye Beven’s NHS speech, and post-war affordable housing.
There are so many possible visions that would excite people: A Green New Deal, Job Guarantee, House Guarantee .. which would enable a well-off population to spend their cash with local private businesses.
Vision? It isn’t “where they will get”; it is exactly what, and when. It s hard, concrete proposals that are required, not another opportunity to paint pictures in the sky that never happen; and do not survive the next news cycle.
On the NHS, for example, a specific programme or reform and development to repair the damage. A clear plan to deliver the resources; money, people, structure. The NHS expends money both in terms of capital and running costs; it is labour intensive. How precisely are the they going to fill the vacancies, stop hemorrhaging money on agency staff; find the people (how? from what sources?), and then find the resources (not least, people again) to train and edcuate them, at scale.
That is just one urgent area among many; and my thoughts here are off the-cuff and do not begin to tackle the detail. The care sector requires to be entirely rebuilt. Forget the money problem for this, for a moment. We are out of Europe after Brexit; where are we going to find all the people required? The trainers, and the trainees? This problem can only grow. We have an ageing population and a falling birthrate.
Hard thinking. Hard Facts. Concrete proposals. Vision doesn’t begin to cut it; it just gives another opportunity for another mellifluously deductive populist politician, playing to the public’s prejudice or sentiment, to build a career out of windy rhetoric and aereated guff.
Starmer and Labour are absolute petrified of even suggesting that they will spend more because of how the right wing media will tear into them so they are hiding behind slogans and hoping that along with the Tories continuing to screw things up will be enough to get them into government.
Sadly, I will likely have to vote Labour as they will almost certainly be the ABC candidate in my constituency.
Craig