Keir Starmer was interviewed by the ever-affable Justin Webb on the Tory Today programme on BBC Radio 4 this morning. Paul Waugh, chief political correspondent of the Independent, summarised one exchange as follows:
Starmer was actually asked about taxes on wealth. He rejected the idea.
What is Starmer saying as a result? There are at least three obvious things.
The first is that inequality does not matter, when it very clearly does.
The second is that he does not think that redistributing from those who only save their excess income to those who might spend it into use in the economy can have an impact on the level of economic activity in the economy as a whole. This reveals a staggering level of incomprehension of the impact of multiplier effects.
Third, what he is saying is that he really does not believe in the ability of government to meet need. If he thinks high tax delivers low growth then he is clearly saying low tax, which is associated with small government, does deliver growth. In other words, he is clearly suggesting that the private sector is to be preferred as a delivery mechanism to the state.
I could dig deeper into this, but I am not sure I need to do so. This is neoliberal thinking of the most basic, dogmatic, mantra-driven and unchallenging type. The message could not be clearer. He thinks that everything that Labour once stood for will not be embraced by him, his team or any government he leads. We will instead get austerity, shrinking services, growing inequality and kow-towing to the markets, bankers, and the supposed entrepreneurs in big business whose sole objective is to gouge out their companies for their own private gain.
I despair.
I can say with a very clear conscience that I will not be voting Labour this week.
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:
It was a dreadful interview in so many ways. He uses and repeats meaningless party line soundbites. We had another reference to “Mission” today. And then there is the ongoing “domestic budget /affordability” theme together with the contradictions regarding tax. No fire and no passion about the topics that matter to the majority of people and where Labour should be setting the agenda for change and reform. I too despair.
This man is real labour. And look what they have done to him.
https://diem25.org/defend-jeremy-corbyn-defend-democracy/
Perfect summary.
Tragedy is many of us saw this coming more than 2 yrs ago.
Starmer is totally unfit to be PM, untrustworthy, can’t believe a word he says, pledges are worthless and labour are a lost cause if they keep on going like this.
I’ll not be voting labour either (except in wales where we still have some vestiges of socialism with Mark Drakeford)
Given Starmer’s background is law & for much of his career his focus was the practise of law, this begs the question: who in Liebore is responsible for telling him that keeping taxes as is, no gov borrowing and no QE is the way forward? & in turn why these Liebore people think this way & how such policies help most people. Perhaps this intention is not to help most people in which case why not re-name themselves Tory II?
I’m guessing the question is rhetorical but it, the neocons in Labour need the name and branding to red wash their nasty, pro wealth, anti worker politics.
I couldn’t bear to listen – just turned the volume down, heard the odd sound which confirmed it was going as expected – and just as you said Richard.
Apparently the Lib Dems are esconced where you are so maybe you dont need to contemplate voting Labour. They are hardly radical – but seem to be more willing to look at solutions than Lab.
They are better local councillors, and that is what I am voting for
No Green option here
Lib Dems got us into this trouble. I remember them smirking as we l9bbied parliament with the fabulous Dr Ron Singer in 2012. I’m in Preston so will be voting for true Labour Socialists like Matty Brown and Martyn Rawlinson.
The Libdems in Durham are in coalition with the Tories and an array of RW “independents’ and are happily implementing Tory policy without so much as the slightest hesitation…if they’re your answer then you’re asking the wrong questions!
My experience around the country is that Lib Dems are chameleons. They adapt their policies / approaches to fit the local situation and although often very nice people, have a very simplistic, conventional view of economics.
Also, sadly, not always nice when it comes to misleading campaign literature.
Also:
The nationalisation of Water is ‘not necessary’.
The nationalisation of Energy ‘unaffordable’.
No more money will be spent but his program is predicated on ‘growth’.
I’m 55 and I would have to concur with Pete Townshend of the Who:
‘Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss’
After which follows a heartfelt scream and the the title of the song:
‘We don’t get fooled again’.
If only.
Good song
I have rarely heard such an uninspiring interview. It came across as one who has little grasp of the important issues, together with virtually no clue as to how to tackle them in a serious or efficacious manner.
The only way we can move successfully into the future is to leave the ideology of Thatcherism in the dead end it deserves.
We face massive, existential threats which demand courageous and clear thinking. Playing the role of orthodox, Establishment Second Eleven, does not do it.
The country needs better.
I won’t be voting Labour either. But I’m sure Starmer won’t mind – he doesn’t want support from people like me, apparently.
I’ve already voted in the local election as I had a postal vote – for the first time. I only had that vote because I do not have the ID the Tories are forcing on people. I had no intention of getting ID just to vote. Where I live it is a Tory stronghold. The MP is one of the safest in the country. I usually do not vote as it is a waste of time. If you are not a Tory supporter, my vote counts for nothing. I refuse to vote just to make up the numbers which just gives credibility to FPTP. Starmer still seems to believe in FPTP, although his party does not (as represented by a conference vote a couple of years back).
The Tories also run the council and local elections are a little different because the turn out is a lot lower and Labour if they mobilise support have a chance to win. There were five candidates for the borough council, 2 Tories, 2 Lab and a Green. No Lib Dems, or Reform or any Independent. I could vote for two. I received some election leaflets from the Tories and Lab. The Tory leaflets went in the recycling bin straight away so some good use came out of them, but the Labour leaflet was a little like Starmer, wishy-washy, neither here nor there. I was disappointed, nothing very specific. On affordable housing it talked of stopping over-development and consultation. In my area that would mean that once the nimbys get hold of it nothing would get done.
I couldn’t bring myself to vote Labour, although they probably have the best chance to unseat the Tories. I used one vote and it went to the Green Party. I largely voted for them because they do have a policy to revitalise council housing. Affordable homes to rent. Labour’s policy can be seen by what Starmer said recently.
“He wants Labour to become the party of homeowners. “The dream of home ownership has been killed by the prime minister because he has taken those targets away. I want Labour to be the party of home ownership.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/29/keir-starmer-labour-party-home-ownership-leader-voters
No, Labour should be the party of affordable housing to rent. That would make a difference, both to the rental market and ultimately the cost to buy. Starmer’s policy is Tory.
I can’t vote for Tory lite, but I can understand why in those seats where the Tory can be beaten, people will vote Lab to get them out. However, many will be disappointed by what Starmer delivers if he really does believe in what he is currently saying.
Woeful.
The best way I’ve heard to express this stuff is what Peter Jukes from Byline Times says – that our politics has been hacked by vested interests.
We are condemned to get the same politics whoever we vote for – at last the American way of doing politics is now firmly ensconced it seems in Britain.
We’ve learnt nothing from BREXIT whatsoever.
My voting card went straight into the shredder this time and so will my GE one. I’m done with the lot of them.
The quotes from MarP and MartinD09 is why I am so not into Labour at all.
There are graduates coming out of university who are carrying huge academic debts.
Can someone explain to me then how they are going to afford a mortgage? How exactly is Labour going to support home ownership to those saddled with debt?
All I see is a narrowing of those who can afford mortgages and property being concentrated amidst fewer owners.
None of it makes sense and my household is in the £50K a year bracket.
Labour have not convinced me of anything and they will not get my vote at all.
This morning I walked to our local Spar shop in true blue tory Mid Devon and I was surprised to see some “Vote Labour” posters, but these were on properties with values of £1 million+. Perhaps this is where Starmer thinks he is focussing his attention but, let’s face it, there are not enough of them to make any difference to the overall votes.
Here we have a local Lib Dem man who does a lot of work for the local community.
I’m not as hostile to Starmer as some, would acknowledge the difficult task he has had in re-establishing Labour’s credibility. However, I missed the intro and listening to that interview I really stopped and asked myself whether it was Starmer I was listening to or a slightly apologetic junior Tory minister. Unbelievable stuff of which Osborne would have heartily approved. If it’s Rachel Reeves feeding him these lines she really needs to be replaced by someone who is not totally indoctrinated with the conventional neoclassical tripe that has got us into the trouble we are in. Otherwise there is no chance whatsoever or rebuilding public services, tackling climate change and building the kind of economy and society we need.
I agree wholeheartedly with the comments on the neoliberal/neoclassical nonsense spouted by Rachel Reeves, but it needs to be said that “re-establishing Labour’s credibility” would really involve reducing the number of bare-faced lies and deceptions that the poisonous MSM spreads about Labour.
Certainly, no point in voting Labour in these local elections. Green, Lib Dem, Labour, anything left of centre – or even centre – that is not Tory. But what about next year’s General Election? My mum and dad were Labour voters ever since the 1945 end of war election, and voted Labour right through to their deaths. Me too, I voted for the Wilson government that put paid to Macmillan and Douglas Home, and voted thus right the way through to that hopeful day in 1997 when we were finally rid to Thatcher and her acolyte Major. But now – given the environmental and climate crisis – the only party to which I feel morally obliged to give my vote is to the Greens. If in Wales,perhaps Plaid. In Scotland, th SNP. In NI, Sinn Fein. Arguably, Caroline Lucas is the one Westminster MP who can be relied on to be sensible, honourable, and committed to the moral imperatives. But in the General election and with the FPTP system operating, what chance do the Greens have of winning in this middle class semi rural market town constituency of Buckingham, , let alone winnin a parliamentary majority and forming a government? And surely the priority must be to rid this country of the Tory wreckers. Which means that the only logical way to vote is to go, depending on the constituency, for the Lib Dems or Labour. Then a Labour government will get in, and hopefully, the many decent, honourable, progressive Labour MPs will be able to influence the Labour leadership into followong a more progressive agenda. In particular, they might see the sense in directing the govenment towards constiutionl reform, with some form of proportional representation, which hopfully will ensure the Tories are consigned tooblivion. So in a general election, in England and Wales at least, the vote has to go to Labour or Lib Dems.
I have been despairing for a while now. But that interview was the final nail in the coffin of Labour for me. Starmer ruled out tax on the wealthy saying the UK is already a “high tax” country…. Has he never heard of redistribution? And no prospect of public ownership of energy or water even though there is wide support? I’m sinking from despair into depression.
Starmer mostly comes across as uncertain, confused and clueless. Terrified of saying anything that could be interpreted as left wing like renationalisation of public utilities, and taxing the wealthy more.
In fact the line about growing the economy more to get more money for public services and having the heaviest ‘tax burden’ since the war was made him sound like Liz Truss or any of the other right wing loonies in this “government”.
And of course Richard, we got tax and spend. Of course he was right about the last 13 years of tory austerity being a disaster, but how is he going to be any different, so how will he solve the problems they created?
God Almighty UK politics is awful. The tories – a sick joke; labour – a useless joke.
Westminster is a neoliberal, political Cartel. I was writing to that effect almost ten years ago; I have never seen any reason to change my opinion. For me it is not a Left/Right issue but a Sense and Nonsense issue; a balanced approach to Public Necessity and Private Freedom.
https://youtu.be/3VVjZCbQ24Q
Prem Sikka on Labour’s kindergarten policies on privatisation. It’s on nottheandrewmarrshow.
Not one to hold back is my mate Prem
You would have thought that the lesson of the Blair/Brown government was so obvious that no Labour leader would ever make the mistake again. Deal with the symptoms but don’t get rid of the disease of neo-liberalism and the Tories will return, only even worse.
Short of an unlikely Saul on the road to Damascus conversion after winning an election it is hard to see anything other than superficial, and hence only temporary, improvement in how this country is run.
With the Inflation Reduction Act – note the careful naming – Biden is setting at least the level of ambition needed. I’m wondering what we can identify from how this is being funded that is relevant to the UK. There is a substantial amount of federal money going into this, along with tax credits and breaks. So where is the money coming from?
It’s created by the US government.
Hence the attempt by the Republicans to impose a debt ceiling on the government to neuter it.
Thats rather what I thought. Could be a useful case study…
It’s not for nothing that my description of Starmer and Reeves (when not resorting to expletives!!) is “flat-earther economists”.
Just as the pre-Copernican astronomers tried to get the ever harder to compute Ptolemaic model of the cosmos to work, indulging in ever more arcane and silly suggestions to make the observed phenomena fit their observations – epicycles, for example, making the planets seem to behave like drunks on the dance floor – so in the same way the flat-earther economists desperately try to make the observations of current economic behaviour square with the dogma and nostrums of the pre-2008 Great Financial Crash “work”, when the GFC simply disassembled the neoliberal Meccano model, leaving it in pieces of the ground, waiting for someone cleverer to pick up the pieces and construct something that did work.
Or if that analogy is wrong – since the economy DOES work, it’s the description that’s wrong – it’s not that they need to reassemble the pieces, but to recognise what it really is, and how it really works.
So the analogy is rather that the flat-earther economists keep trying to make toast in a frying pan.
Alas, I have very little respect for either the integrity, or intelligence, of either Starmer or Reeves.
I asked Richard to delete a description of Starmer that I included in a post, on the grounds that it was too ad hominem for this Blog, so I won’t offer it again, except to say that I see two major characteristics of Starmer’s MO as being stupidity and vindictiveness, and fear he’d be an unimaginative, authoritarian disaster as PM.
As for Reeves, she’s simply a thuggish politician (which I fear is also too ad hominem, but offer this Tweet, which I entitle “Reeves skewered” in evidence
https://twitter.com/JackMonaghan1/status/1593265355253846017?t=xIwOt6uraSRupVq3khSDqA&s=07), to whom stupidity, vindictiveness and authoritarian can also be ascribed.
How have we ended up with such a talentless collection of blinkered and untrustworthy ideologues and incompetents in charge of both major Parties?
Change is really needed, and it will only – CAN only – come from below, as is happening in France.
The British people as a whole are SO much better than the class of politicians purporting to rule them, when actually they’re contemptuously seeking to fool them!
I stopped listening to Today, or much of BBC R4, some years ago. Justin Webb was one of the reasons. More importantly, it was my realisation that the filter being applied to “news” was narrowing and strengthening, so that you rarely ever heard anything outside a very controlled set of perspectives. Add to that the economic incoherence on offer (government spending as a household budget analogies endlessly), the lack of news from anywhere bar UK, USA and events elsewhere that impact “us”, and the increasing irrationality of “balance” where they had people with strong opinions but no knowledge to counter people with knowledge based on peer-reviewed evidence (e.g. climate change “debates”).
So, I missed the Starmer interview, fortunately for my peace of mind. It is deeply dispiriting to think that the only viable alternative to more Tory government is a slightly watered down and less brazenly self-serving Tory-lite version. That they subscribe to the same economic approach is no surprise, given the hold it has on our establishment. You will find plenty of debate of different approaches on forums like this, but almost none in the mainstream, particularly on the BBC. What will it take to puncture the balloon of delusion? Can’t they see that offering people a future where everything gets worse, from environment to economy via healthcare, education, public transport, politics and discourse, is not a viable project. If you keep telling people there is no alternative and things can only get worse, we all end up killing ourselves, each other, or them.
Before that happens, someone else will offer a vision of a better future, and rise to power. The worry is that it will be a right-wing populist, or someone with no particular ideology, but a lot of ambition, and charisma. It’s almost as if the main parties want us to turn to some sort of demagogic populist because they are creating the ideal conditions for such a rise. All people want is someone with a vision of a better future that they can believe in. But nobody is offering that – yet.
It was indeed a dismal, but perhaps not surprising, interview. I think Starmer is clueless when it comes to economics. Justin webb is equally clueless.
Starmer’s main skill is in destroying the credibility of an honest person.
But I cannot help wondering if the interview was more choreographed that we might suspect.
Starmer said:
I won’t eliminate university loans because the economic circumstances mean that it is not now appropriate,
I won’t nationalize utilities because the economic circumstances mean that it is not now appropriate,
I won’t increase taxes on higher earners because the economic circumstances mean that it is not now appropriate,
I won’t equalize income and capital gains tax rates because the economic circumstances mean that it is not now appropriate.
We are going for a growth strategy.
This new political program is designed to appeal to the well paid (> 50k) middle classes.
Starmer has changed Labour’s electoral base.
Labour is no longer the party of those earning less than the median wage.
When Starmer gets into power, as still seems likely, he cannot be accused of breaking electoral promises.
Perhaps that was the real purpose of this interview.
‘Starmer’s main skill is in destroying the credibility of an honest person’ – the perfect definition of a lawyer. When I first began to seriously study the French ‘revolution’ I could immediately see the huge benefit of the Committees For Public Safety. If properly staffed by real honest hard working people would enact real effective justice as opposed to the ‘closed self serving lawyers club’. Once a lawyer has made enough money they become judges.
The French ‘revolution’ might have become a real revolution if not for scum like Robespierre who organized,schemed to get the real revolutionary Danton executed. Fast forward and we have the political execution of Corbin organized, schemed by yes – a lawyer – history repeating itself.
Keir Starmer has a lot in common with Boris Johnson, at least when it comes to Prime Minister aspirations. He has the scent of it in his nostrils and believes entirely that it is now his for the taking and his by right, and he will do/say/support whatever he has to do/say/support in order to make this aspiration a reality. And just like old Boris, he doesn’t hold true to any particular belief or creed other than whatever is required in any particular moment to secure him in his trajectory to power. And when he gets his PM-ship, he will continue to do/say/support whatever is required to keep him there, and, as we know, what will get him there/keep him there, has nothing to do with an actual democratic vote. Nope – it is only by pledging never to rock the boat, never to change anything other than the rate of tax down for the rich and the rate up for the poor, and only by slavishly adhering to the status quo will he hope to achieve his dream. I’d say he has all the attributes of a psychopath – the only difference to Boris, is he’s not a narcissistic one. And to be honest, I’m not sure that’s any sort of improvement.
A useful piece of historical analysis on the UK’s long, long decline and ultimate death:
https://www.palladiummag.com/2023/04/27/britain-is-dead/
“In essence, the distinctively innovative and moralistic culture that distinguished England from Europe, most fully expressed in Puritanism and Cromwellian republicanism, flowed into America’s east coast elites even as it was crushed by the aristocracy at home. Britain’s version of the modernizing class—represented elsewhere by Washington, Napoleon, Garibaldi, Bismarck, the Meiji Emperor, Lenin, Mao, and Nasser—even arose far earlier, during the English Civil War and Glorious Revolution. It died a premature death, unable to provide the refounding moment for Britain that occurred in 1776 in America, 1789 in France, 1868 in Japan, and 1949 in China.
Because of its status as an initially advantaged first mover, the UK now has a fortified elite content to live on the rents of bygone ages. Its social order is constituted by the cultural legacy of the old aristocracy, underwritten by London financial brokers, and serviced by a shrinking middle class. Its administrative and political classes developed a culture of amateurism, uninterested in either the business of classically informed generalism or that of deep technical specialism. The modern result is a system that incentivizes speculative, consultative, and financial service work over manufacturing, research, and production.”
Starmer either hasn’t got a clue how to deal with what he will likely inherit, or else he is actually aiming to provide seamless continuity.
Hannah,
wanting to understand at least the basics of particle physics I bought an excellent layman’s intro to the subject – The Dancing Wu-Li Masters.
One of the first things you learn is – that all systems tend towards self perpetuation. So, what happens with the basic building blocks of life holds true right up to and including homo sapien. An excellent factual post, thank you.
Three years ago we hoped Starmer would give us positive reasons to vote Labour once Covid was over and we now have to recognise that hasn’t and won’t happen. And then he has shown a nasty side, like approving the personal attack on Sunak for judicial (not political) actions taken when he wasn’t even in Parliament.
But sadly, in a FPTP system it may be more important to deny someone election than make a positive vote. Which means Labour might be the way to vote. (But for other people elsewhere LibDem or Green or whatever).
The current question is whether to vote in a local election a way which is indicative of what we might do in a parliamentary election. And that is less clear, any party may have proved itself effective on a local level and deserve continuing support despite any reservations about their national policies.
The current question is whether you will be able to vote at all in the local elections.
I do hope the weather is lovely and warm in Kenilworth on Thursday.
https://bylinetimes.com/2023/05/02/voter-plans-one-man-protest-against-gerrymandering-mandatory-photo-id-law-at-local-elections-on-thursday/
And:
“The resulting British state was over-geared towards non-productive economic rent-seeking. In effect, Britain didn’t have an incentive to chase development for survival, because it was the dominant power of early industrialization. Consequently, it never produced an elite whose primary base of power and wealth was industrial production, and which thus had a strong stake in developing and maintaining an industrial society.
Religious and social exclusion from Oxford and Cambridge meant that the middle classes did not share the generalist education of most British elites. The avenue into power for this synthetic class had for much of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries been the Oxford literae humaniores course in classical Greek and Latin, often supplemented by study for civil service exams focused on British constitutional history. These exams, both old and new, have produced a generalist administrative class with institutional and humanistic knowledge but little technical skill. Even after such restrictions were lifted, however, tensions kept rising between the old preference for general education and the bourgeois need for technical expertise.
In 1920, Oxford launched its Politics, Philosophy, and Economics (PPE) course to create a syncretic technocratic-generalist pathway into the civil service. Herbert James Paton, a contemporary university administrator and philosopher, criticized PPE as “an ineffective modern version of literae humaniores…for the softer man.”
The PPE course remains dominant in British public life.”
Very good
The whole article is well worth a read. Whilst it might be a touch one sided with nothing positive to say, there are a lot of home truths in there.
Richard, you’ve come late to despair. I’m puzzled that you haven’t recognised that Starmer’s course has been clear since he was made leader, he is doing what he always intended, which is to make sure that the Labour Party is no threat to neoliberal capitalism, US geopolitical hegemony and all of the associated vested interests.
The wider picture, as someone else pointed out in a comment today, is that we live in an “electoral democracy” where policy is however always managed on behalf of the oligarchy/plutocracy who control finance, corporations, our institutions, the media, etcetera, etcetera.
I remember when you were the voice of “Corbynomics” and many of us followed this blog, daring to hope that change might happen. What did happen was something very different, very traumatic, vividly demonstrating the unpleasant truth about the world we live in. I have always been impressed by your previously seemingly indefatigable optimism, but join the club, I gave in to despair quite a long time ago.
I remain an optimist
We just need a different route
There’s an organisation that isn’t being given due credit for the puppet currently leading the Labour Party. (Of course, the “secrecy” is entirely deliberate.)
Established within six days of Corbyn’s nomination in 2015, and passing through several iterations, Labour Together first broke cover in The New Statesman – and at a focus group in Nuneaton in April 2016. That focus group, according to its report *incidentally and in an ad hoc manner*, solicited opinions on a better leader – “choose between a soldier [Dan Jarvis, not named], a sailor [not named] or a lawyer [named as Keir Starmer]”.
Links to the Report, and to the Transcripts of the discussions of the two groups (ex-Labour voters divided by gender) are given at the end of this LabourList article.
https://labourlist.org/2016/05/jeremy-corbyn-struggling-to-convince-marginal-seat-swing-voters-research-finds/
Relevant pages are:
* Report: pp 6-8
* Transcript – females: pp 59-62
* Transcript – males: pp 42-50
Was it really only a general focus group?
* Hedge-funder Martin Taylor donated £90,300.00 to Dan Jarvis between February 2016 and March 2018.
* Taylor also donated £95,000.00 to Starmer.
* Trevor Chinn donated £50,000.00 to Starmer’s leadership campaign.
And as an aside, the main Director of Labour Together is Sir Trevor Chinn. (The three MPs Steve Reed, Lisa Nandy and Jon Cruddas have recently resigned.)
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/09630980/officers
Chinn isn’t the greatest fan of redistribution via taxation, of course: here he is in 2008:
https://citywire.com/funds-insider/news/call-not-to-hammer-the-super-rich-with-taxes/a315788?linkSource=article-related-news
I have been reading Michael Foots biography on Nye Bevan. I have come to the chapter on the second Labour government in 1929. The Labour leadership were being urged to offer state aid to the unemployed. Unemployment had rocketed to 15% . The Great Depression was in full swing. The Right were firmly opposed to to helping. They were determined to cut spending. Those on the Left including Bevan attended protest meetings with other groups including the Communists. He was threatened with disciplinary action for this by the Right wing NEC. Ramsey Mcdonald and Philip Snowden urged the Party to show unity . They were successful and classical economics won the day. not long after the Unemployment Bill was passed Labour MPs woke one morning to learn Mcdonald had resigned and was now leader of a National Coalition government . In the subsequent election in 1931 Labour had just 50 MPs. The 1930s were a living hell for the working class. 150 people died every day from the effects of malnutrition.
Unemployment never fell below 10%. There are similarities today. Millions rely on charity to feed themselves. 500 people die each week due to lack of medical staff. Bevan has left an indelible mark on his country like no other politician. Throughout his career he had to fight a constant battle against the Right. Not long before he died he was threatened with expulsion for battling for socialism. Corbyn has been treated in the same way. The Labour Right is a brutal force which has now jettisoned socialism. Starmer has thrown out socialists. His plans now are exactly the same as the Tories. The truth is that just as the country needed the implementation of socialism after WW2 it is essential today. I hope I am wrong but we could be looking at another Ramsey Mcdonald .
The taxation wobble is weird in the context of local elections. Just as a vote chasing strategy it is dumb, it is more of a wealthy backer chasing strategy. Must be a reaction to polling telling him to back off scaring wobbling Tory voters.
Even if his original intention was insincere it makes no sense to attack his own credibility now. There are enough Tory commentators paid to do that.
In my ward there are two seats to be voted for, and three candidates, two Labour and one Tory. I will therefore be spoiling my ballot paper in such a way as to make to my disgust at the “choices” on offer obvious. PS, I have delivered Green Party materials in the neighboring ward of St Margarets and St Nicholas, where there is a serious chance of victory for them.
I suspect what would REALLY frighten Mr Starmer is if Jeremy Corbyn were to leave the Labour Party, create a new party that supports his values, and all the Labour Party MPs who support(ed) him—and are sick of Starmer—were to defect to it. Before the General Election.
The problem with such a project is that it will just become a personality cult like what happened with Brezhnev in the soviet union. The appeal to an authentic version of a political party can only create a political fiction. This fiction will not survive under heavy scrutiny that surely will come from the British press.
The politics of Starmer are the politics of the labour party. The labour party just want a leader to win a general election to get rid of a tory government. That should be pretty clear. That is what the labour membership want. It is why they voted for Corbyn, Blair, Kinnock, Miliband etc. They didnt vote Corbyn because they agreed with him.
Not clear at all. What’s happening in the Labour Party is what Starmer wants. That’s why he has got rid of loads of members who do not agree with him. The elections tomorrow are a farce as he has got rid of local candidates wanted by the local people, and imposed those in agreement with him, even in local elections.
Starmer has now abandoned plans for not taxing the top 5% more. That is NOT what the labour party wants, it’s a Starmer pledge broken again. Obviously he didn’t think he got enough flack from his plan to keep tuition fees.
What is needed is a person with credibility, charisma, principles, and vision, plus the determination to overcome the huge pressure and opposition they would face. Such people are rare, and the system actively works to prevent them emerging. Starmer is exactly what you should expect from our current setup. Unfortunately.
“He thinks that everything that Labour once stood for will not be embraced by him, his team or any government he leads.” He said it explicitly that Labour is a different political party from what it was.
We are sure on the same side.
“This reveals a staggering level of incomprehension of the impact of multiplier effects.” I wonder? He is just supporting the rich and powerful who want to keep us under control via deprivation.
I despair. The only possible spin I can put on this is Labour has to out the current incumbents and KS is playing a game of ‘a safe pair of hands’. We can’t have another 5 years of Tory misrule. However, hearing the plodding answers of Keir and his team sends me to sleep. They sound like trained automata. Hard to see them inspiring us lot to get out and vote.
David Byrne says:
I gave up reading this thread in annoyance. Many regular respondents quoting opinions on Starmer and Reeves usually found in the tabloid press. Key priorities for the UK democratic process are:
-everyone must vote
-the Tories must be voted out
at local and next year, at national level.
–
That’s no real answer. Vote tories out by voting red tories?
Lots of good labour MPs in Labour Outlook group, but I bet they will be banned from the party soon.
https://labouroutlook.org/2023/05/02/always-stand-up-for-the-rights-of-workers-to-defend-their-pay-and-conditions-apsana-begum-mp-exclusive/
I never read tabloids, by the way, and I doubt whether many others do on this blog.
I am pleased there are no elections in County Durham tomorrow as I would be in a dilemma. I could not vote for a Starmeroid, even though I have voted Labour most of my voting life, over 50 years.
I agree David. Suggesting that Starmer is no different to Johnson or Sunak is losing the plot. Just grumpily not voting Labour is playing straight into the Tory’s hands. They will be very grateful.
Get active, get involved and get the Tories out. Locally and then nationally. And if that means voting tactically, do that too. This is no time to be sitting on hands for the sake of political purity. That’s no better than the PFLJ. Or the JPLF.
Romani nunc…
Are you a member of the labour party, or have you ever been?
Starmer is the one using his sort of electoral purity to rid the party of all people who disagree with him on anything. If you were a member you would know that.
Many left-wing CLP members have been banned from the party if they disagree with him on Palestine, even Jewish members.
The front bench would be banned from the party if they stopped supporting strikers. That’s not a left-wing stance. So you agree that they should just shut up and do as they are told by Starmer and Evans, do you?
i honestly think the far left should form it’s own Party and fight for the ideals and policies they believe in. The Labour party wii continuously try to attract centre ground voters and this will continually frustrate you and others like you.
Your argument makes no sense
I am far from ‘far left’ being a social democrat who thinks markets have a key role to play in an economy
What we object to is the Labour Party being centre right
I still have my membership card. The first sentence is
“The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party.”
Not any more, it isn’t. A democratic socialist party would take note of all the people who voted for Corbyn in North Islington and let him stand again for the party.
https://labouroutlook.org/2023/04/30/this-may-day-we-will-stand-by-our-mp-jeremy-corbyn-islington-friends-of-jeremy-corbyn/
Mr Dyche,
I do not consider myself a socialist and do not vote Labour (although I would probably be considered a socialist in the US; but I suspect they would now consider Roosevelt a socialist there). Nevertheless, you have moved the centre so far right it is already so far out of my bandwith, my receiver can’t even pick up a signal (perhaps you believe nobody will notice that the Conservatives mounted the ‘centre’ on wheels and have moved it right off the map).
An explanation of how the party stands today.
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-and-mystery-missing-policies
This is a link from a group that says it is non-political!