It is always worth remembering that the Guardian is not a Labour newspaper. If anything, it is liberal, with maybe a large and small L. This, though, from its editorial yesterday, definitely distances it from Starmer, about whom it says:
Some politicians manipulate circumstances to their advantage, waiting for the right moment to confront institutions that need to be changed. Others say they will break with the past no matter what the risk … Sir Keir has followed neither path.
They conclude:
His policies are distinguished by their lack of ambition and are dwarfed by the problems they seek to solve.
I would add that his economics will never let that change unless they are.
Sir Keir is a conservative. His deep desire is to uphold the status quo. The problem, as Gramsci might have put it, is that the status quo is dying and the new is waiting to be born. And Keir Starmer is not a political midwife, let alone the promised upoholder of all that is new and necessary.
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:
A great line from the Guardian and a great post.
It’s the thin difference in the differences between the parties in the poll you showed yesterday that is so telling.
Their conclusion is the crux isn’t it? It’s bang on.
Looking at the monumental problems the country faces and the lack of ambition is unforgivable.
Interesting The Guardian finally coming out and saying this. Is this the sign the liberal establishment are starting to get nervous about Starmers profoundly illiberal position on almost everything? Up till now the silence from most of them has been deafening.
But on almost every single issue he’s aligned with the “small c” conservative position. Nationalisation, Brexit, drugs, policing, immigration, support for unions, utility bills, trans rights, NHS outsourcing, migrants.
I despair.
He’s probably going to be our next PM and al it seems he’ll do is make some marginal improvements round the edges whilst baking in some of the worst laws the Conservatives have passed and will pass. Does anyone really believe he’ll reverse the anti-protest bill? Any of the anti-immigration bills? The anti-union laws?
Good afternoon
I would say, let’s see what Starmer does, rather what he says
The Tories are past masters at promising the earth in order to win elections, then doing the opposite when in power. Maybe Starmer will be the same
Listening and talking to people though, many recognise that the country is ready for a shake-up and a more radical agenda. He’s nothing to fear I believe by setting out a bold plan
I wish I could be as optimistic as you
I believe these people
They really are pro-austerity
Regarding Starmer, I always think of Maya Angelou’s quote:
“When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.”
He’s performed a 180 degree turn on the pledges which won him the leadership of the Labour Party.
The idea that he is somehow Machiavellian enough to continue and turn the full circle after winning a General Election to become somewhat left-wing is simply fanciful.
I wish I could disagree with you, Mariner. But I find myself unable to. Your assessment of Starmer is spot on, I think.
With respect I disagree, He only has to go slightly too radical or bold and the right wing red tops will send out the attack dogs for eighteen months to tear him to shreds and bingo another tory GOVT will ensue.
I don’t much like what the Labour Party say or do either, but I would infinitely prefer something like the last Labour GOVT to another 5 years of this present insanity.
Even if Starmer is indeed a conservative – in the traditional one-nation sense, you would have thought that would still leave him ample scope to change some of the worst aspects of the disfunctional market setup.
He seems so ruthless in gripping the party power structures yet so timid in discussing, or even allowing anyone else to discuss , any policy ideas and certainly economic ones.
He seems to be getting the worst of all worlds – Labour implies things will be better – but mainly by talking about the Tories – along with most media for the last two years.
They say what the Tories are doing wrong but wthout a hint of a vision of how things will be better – other than tiny little improvements on specific things – e.g. processing asylum seekers quicker.
If only Starmer did call out the Tories. On the NHS he has a perfect opportunity to say loud and clear and repeatedly that the Tories are destroying the NHS. Instead, he and his appalling side kick Streeting say they would use more of the private sector, and repeatedly kick the managers, GPs and now Junior Doctors. Its an open goal and Starmer seems yet again intent on missing it.
I think the Ipsos Mori poll this week has a couple of straws in the wind, namely that Sunak has prevented full implosion of the Conservatives (unfortunately, if not unsurprising) and his recent energy has lifted his personal ratings, if not that of the Tories themselves.
It also shows a puncturing of Starmer’s own ratings, which are on a marked downward path again, a bit like post December 2020 where a bunch of non committal parliamentary votes and the vaccine rollout saw him steamrollered by a pre partygate scandal-ridden Johnson.
It’ll be interesting to see how the local elections play out in a month’s time. A few weeks ago a near Tory wipeout looked possible. I think that has changed and it is possible we’ll be in a situation where despite very heavy losses they manage to cling to some results reasonable enough to actually do damage to Starmer.
As we know, in everything they do, the Tories are ably helped by their corrupted press backers – just look at the now constant probing for signs of weakness in the opposition leader from every rightwing organ. Any speck of positive news for Sunak out of those local results will be leveraged to high heaven.
It seems Labour are likely not to be able to contest around 200 wards in May elections. They cant even find Labour voters to sign nomination forms ( and I think only two nominators are now required. Of course local elections dont get much interest but the problems could get publicity, though in national press.
Signing a candidate’s nomination form merely affirms that you agree the candidate should stand in the election. It has no implications whatsoever regarding your voting intentions.
The Labour Party does not need to find Labour voters for this purpose. To get signatures it’s normally sufficient to knock on a few doors and to ask people if they would like the democratic choice of voting for the candidate. I have never had any problem getting nominations for Green Party candidates.
You don’t need Labour voters or members to nominate a Labour candidate for local elections. You need a registered voter. The problem finding candidates to stand for every available seat is likely to be related to the reduction in party members at the grassroots level, and the removal or suspension of activists who have displeased the party apparatchiks.
Perhaps Starmer needs to re-name Liebour: Sans Souci –
The phrase is carved into the pediment of Sanssouci Palace in Potsdam. It’s a clever French pun: Sans virgule souci point – no rod, no worries (virgule means comma, but also rod; point means full stop, but is the emphatic negative). thus Fred the Great was celebrating his impotence & I’d suggest that the name Sans Souci applied to Starmer & Liebore is perfect for a politically impotent Labour party which has no policies and a tory (in all but name) leader, it is thus pointless. Vote Sans Souci – vote for pointlessness.
Mike
What are you on?!
You’ve totally lost me mate, although I know that you mean well.
I get it, I think, and I agree.
He’s not even a morbid symptom
And FPTP is not much of a political midwife either. There could have been a ‘progressive majority’ in England if Lib/Lab had tactically voted. Some form of PR might help policy agendas but as per UKIP/Europe be careful what you wish for!
I know a disturbingly large number of Labour supporters who seem to think Starmer is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Their attitude seems to be that he is saying all the right things for Labour to get elected and, when all is said and done, he can’t do anything to improve the country without that.
Admittedly there is something to that. However it would be difficult for a government to reverse the damage done by neoliberalism without the required measures being in its manifesto. That will have to be done some time, and to use Hillel the Elder’s words, if not now then when?
So effective is the right-wing fog-horn at drowning out the truth that it always seems to come as a surprise to many that the Guardian supported Thatcher in 1979 and the Coalition in 2010.
Like its tabloid equivalent the Daily Mirror, whose owner in 1968 tried to organise a right-wing coup against Wilson and its owners today who also control the far-right, truth defying Daily Express, support for the Labour party has always been contingent.
I too am without hope that Labour will be bold enough to make the changes we need for a fairer, caring, greener politics, culture and society. However, I will vote Labour, what else is there, as I cannot bring myself to the point of not voting which I think at least gives me the right to criticise the government.
The Guardian got what they wanted with Starmer replacing Corbyn, and now they don’t like it? Their evident hatred of Corbyn lead them to attack and undermine Corbyn at every turn, thereby helping to undermine the LP’s chances in 2017 and 2019. A Labour Party that could have effected significant change. Yes I know, they didn’t tick all the boxes, but how much better off would we be now? A the very least we would have avoided all these years of Tory misrule. This editorial seems like crocodile tears to me.
The idea that Britain is waiting for something better I suspect completely misunderstands bot British history, and the British electorate.
First you would need to eliminate FPTP. The British electorate together have had the opportunity to do it, and haven’t. In the North East England they had the opportunity for devolution, and turned it down. I suggest one reason they keep avoiding facing the problem is because they are afraid of what they may find out: about themselves.