The Labour Party's national executive and high-level officials are meeting this weekend to discuss their strategy. I suspect they will have an interesting time. The first task will be to discover just what it is that they are talking about.
That said, one item that is bound to be on the agenda, is the loss of the Uxbridge by-election. This is being blamed on Sadiq Khan and the imminent ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ) scheme being introduced in the area by most commentators this morning, but I rather strongly suspect that this is just a convenient excuse.
Labour's campaign around this issue was incredibly weak given that they knew that it was on the local political radar.
They failed to mention that this whole scheme was created by Boris Johnson, who resigned as MP for Uxbridge, so creating this by-election.
They also failed to mention that Grant Shapps, when he was the Transport Secretary, required that Sadiq Khan extend the ULEZ scheme to the whole of Greater London, including Uxbridge, as a condition of additional funding for Transport for London. In other words, the policy that was being objected to was one imposed by the Tories, but Labour did not mention that.
It also seems that Labour forgot to mention that at least 92% of all cars in Greater London will not have to pay this charge because they are already compliant with its requirements.
And, finally, Labour failed to put forward any proposal on how to deal with the remaining cars that did not comply with the scheme. If they had learned anything from the French experience on these issues, they would have understood that when making a potentially unpopular proposal with regard to climate-related change they must also put forward a transition plan so that those who are less well off (who are also the most likely to have to pay this charge because they are the most likely owners of older cars) must be provided the opportunity to transition to the new requirements.
In this case this very obviously required a ‘cash for clunkers' scheme to be introduced, just as one was created to provide a boost to the economy in 2009 by Alistair Darling when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. if this had been on Labour‘s agenda then the likelihood that they would have lost this seat would, I suggest, have been very low.
In that case, the question has to be asked as to why Labour did not take the initiative on this issue by mentioning any of these things? I think there is one glaringly obvious answer and that is that Labour high command would not allow any suggestion to be made that implied that additional spending might be incurred by a future labour government even if it guaranteed the win of a seat.
So great is Labour‘s paranoia about spending, debt, and all related issues that winning seats, tackling environmental issues, enhancing local well-being and funding necessary processes of change are all ignored simply so that Rachel Reeves can balance her books.
There is a fundamental lesson for Labour in this failure in that case. If they really want to win an election then the time has come for them to get off the fence.
They, first of all, need strategies.
Second, they need to end their obsession with debt.
Third, they might need to talk about additional taxation.
And fourth, they will also need to recognise that there are additional sources of funding available to them that will not impose any stress on the electorate. I have outlined one of these this morning in my letter in the Guardian. There is absolutely no economic or legal reason why the proposal that I have made, that the interest rate payment to commercial banks on deposits they hold with the Bank of England should not be tiered, saving the government maybe £30 billion a year in interest costs could be introduced by Labour. I think we can safely say it would have provided more than enough to have funded any proposal it could have made for Uxbridge.
Labour has to make a choice this weekend. They can accept living with debt paranoia, austerity, and failure, or they can reject those narratives and look for means to fund the necessary transitions that must take place in the UK if we are to become a successful, thriving, vibrant and sustainable country once more. What is certain is that this second option is not available without additional spending, taxation and maybe borrowing.
So, what is Labour going to decide? Is it going to opt for failure, or is it going to talk about the reality of life as it now is, and what they must do to improve it, as well as the necessary funding?
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:
Curtice understands the politics here (BBC R4, ‘Today’). Starmer is frozen in uncertainty, and will no doubt take the line of least perceived risk; changing nothing is the easy way out, and promise to be nicer people, while doing the wrong things.
It seems to me he is in this hopeless position because he is terrified by the proven power of neoliberal ideology to seduce the conservative British public under FPTP to believe that whatever the disastrous outcome of neoliberal policies there is no alternative. I am still looking for a reason not to conclude that Britain is not a lost cause and is now in unavoidable terminal decline. All that is happening is that the slippery slope is accelerating.
Not so terrified that he supports retaining FPTP to keep things just as they are for the forseeable future.
“changing nothing” means keeping FPTP. Starmer is terrified of changing anything of substance that does not reconcile with neoliberal shibboleths; he just want to persuade voters that Labour cares about the demolition of their prosperity and wellbeing that he is determined to deliver; your discomfort will be the proof he cares.
I am not sure what issue you are debating.
Local Labour are so scared of being reported for being off message that – with some exceptions – you cannot get a sensible answer out of them except to repeat debt myths. It is a genuine scare, as a lot of the lefties have gone, and in the remainder, there are those who have always taken every chance to fix, report, etc.
LOTO are genuinely harming the country.
And will continue to do so in spades, should he, God forbid, become PM.
As I’ve said before, he and his crew of Starmerite (inner circle) and Starmerrhoid (cult-followers – so nicknamed by me as being a pain in the bum and potentially dangerous to health) crazies and third-raters are a “clear and present danger” to democracy for their lack of vision on the one hand, and their headbanging vindictiveness (think Jamie Driscoll and Neal Lawson and Emma Dent Coad) on the other.
Visionless authoritarianism isn’t an enticing prospect.
PS: I’d exempt Ed Miliband, and maybe Yvette Cooper from the third rater tag, but the rest of the Shadow Cabinet, from Starner and Reeves down, really are a bunch of third raters. I don’t fancy being governed by such a crowd of whelk stall operatives!
Agreed. I always liked Ed Miliband and was very sorry he was ousted. He talks a lot of sense when he gets a chance, but how long before he is thrown out of the Shadow cabinet?
When Ed Miliband was doing his “Green policies” presentation to the shadow cabinet apparently Starmer like a sort of weird Dr Strangelove (Peter Sellers) suddenly burst out saying “I hate tree-huggers!”
@ Andrew Dickie.
“Visionless authoritarianism” perfect description of how low the Labour Party has sunk under Starmer! Thank you.
Good article. Also, Labour’s candidate started the campaign saying he supported the ULEZ expansion and then did a u-turn about 3 weeks ago. Caved in to Tory framing
This post ought to be called ‘Labours Lies and Deceit’ (which is how I have linked it to some emails to people I know this morning who think that Labour are just being clever to get voted in).
A party that lies to itself cannot be trusted, surely?
This is dire. And Angela Rayner of all people (the John Prescott working class credibility mascot of her time) wheeled out to say the same thing this morning.
What’s wrong with ’em?
Hapless, hopeless, stymied, inward looking, vain, internecine, gutless, heartless, cowardly, spineless, vacuous, self-serving, monolithic scaredy-cats.
Stick a fork in their backside – they’re done before they’ve even started. Pah!
Balancing the books because of misplaced monetary illiteracy is killing this country. As one commenter I read it results as far as the state failing to spend on just one item, tackling climate change, that we all end up like frogs in saucepan of water coming to the boil. A rather horrible and insensitive image but that’s the very real implication of moronic leaders like Kid Starver.
Sorry – just to follow on – Uxbridge is all too redolent of the way that Labour did not defend itself adequately from accusations that they bankrupted the country in 2010.
They just capitulated and went with the false narrative.
I’m so annoyed at this, I just don’t know what to say. They’re really beginning to get up my nose now.
If you cannot control or contest the narrative, what are doing even thinking about getting into political power?
It makes you wonder if Labour do actually want to win. It is about the only way that I can understand the total failure of Labour led by Starmer to do anything other than support Tory policies.
Richard, the obvious issue that a ‘cash for clunkers’ scheme raises is that clunker owners dont for the most part have the money to buy a new car which is what these schemes have required to date.
Undoubtedly there are potential ways around this, probably giving individual vehicles an exemption being one.
But yes Labour left the goal wide open on ULEZ
Richard,
Tory lite Labour are:
1. economically illiterate
2. devoid of any policy that might deal with the problems faced by the country.
3. clueless at campaigning.
4. scared witless of mainstream media.
Labour are just a Lucky Dip party like all the rest because of monetary illiteracy and reluctance to tax equitably. Choose their barrel to do your dipping and odds are your finger will encounter a mouse trap!
“(who are also the most likely to have to pay this charge because they are the most likely owners of older cars) ” The less well off and more likely not to own a car to begin with.
Also true, but not mutually exclusive
This is a good commentary in Open Democracy:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/uxbridge-south-ruislip-ulez-expansion-sadiq-khan-conservative-labour
It is worth noting that there was a very low turnout (GE 48k voters, thursday 31k) in Mendacious Fat’s old seat. Overall, I see the result as quite good, vile-lie-bore unable to get a consistent message together and various unforced errors (candidate was initially for ULZ extention then not..??? ). There is a prospect of repeating this at the GE, when the pressure will be intense and Sir Kid “flip-flop” Starver will make Teresa May-like errors (like May, the man is weak). Vile-lie-bore offer no hope, no change, no anything. Only an imbecile would vote for them under what passes for current “leadership”.
Could Labour have made a tactical decision to loose Uxbridge over the ULEZ?
Not wanting to frighten the Tories and their backers too much,?
I doubt it
But the chair of the local party has resigned in protest today and left the party
“They also failed to mention that Grant Shapps, when he was the Transport Secretary, required that Sadiq Khan extend the ULEZ scheme to the whole of Greater London, including Uxbridge, as a condition of additional funding for Transport for London. In other words, the policy that was being objected to was one imposed by the Tories, but Labour did not mention that.”
Astonishing. So the ULEZ is really a tory idea that they are now using to attack Khan, and labour can’t even point that out. As PSR points out, this is exactly like letting the tories get away with their lie in 2010 that profligate public spending by labour ‘bankrupted’ the UK.
Labour are as weak and cowardly as the tories are dishonest, cynical and utterly bereft of any principle other than clinging onto power for its own sake.
Considering that government debt is savings, especally pensions, how will the government reduce it?
If this was understood by the electorate this the tories would loose their favourate club to beat us with.
True
They won’t learn any lessons. Keir Starmer has the scent of premiership in his nostrils and like the narcotic that power is, it has robbed him of any sense of integrity, decency or reality. His desire to be PM overrides any residual (and it must have been fleetingly small to begin with) sense of loyalty to the socialist/labour cause, and the sycophants around him are as equally beguiled by the same intoxicating promise of power and success.
Once you recognise that the true power resides with a handful of the supremely wealthy, then the audience you have to please is actually very small. You just have to demonstrate that you won’t deviate markedly from the required path; you’ll keep the cash flow running consistently and without interruption uphill to those at the top and you’ll not threaten in any real shape or form, the established status quo. And in return, you get the apparel and appearance of power and your place in history. It matters not that you’ll preside over the dying days of a nation or that you’ll wilfully watch the world suffocate in the heat of climate change because you’re convinced that you’re going to be protected – you’ll have your place near the top table and you’ll believe yourself to be immune from the consequences.
I can vote tactically but we’re fools to think this is going to change anything. You just have to look at the percentages that continue to vote Tory and the percentages that split the left vote to realise that nothing is going to change. As the T-shirt says, if voting actually changed anything, they’d make it illegal.
The Green Party candidate came third with over 893 votes. Labour lost by 495 votes. No brainer. The sooner Starmer implements Labour’s policy on PR and commits to legislate for PR, the better.
Exactly. So if labour had made any effort to work with other parties like the LDs and Greens in a progressive alliance I e. a tactical voting arrangement such as that suggested by Neal Lawson (Compass) they could well have won.
But no, while labour will comprise their principles out of existence, they stick to their tribalism and factionalism with an unbending determination.
We have an atrocious government and equally awful opposition.
Unfortunately there’s no practical way of tactically voting for a hung Parliament, which is much the preferable option, given that there’s high probability it would mean opening the door to an electoral reform that would lead to a better political realignment.
A majority Starmer led government is a depressing thought, but a deleted Tory government would be a disaster. However the Labour Party still contains a majority of its members who see the inflexible ritual Conservatism of the current leadership as a tactical act to be modified once it has achieved its object .
Even if Starmer does have a sizeable majority in Parliament it could be a very hard one to control, as all big majorities ted to be In which case, given that Starmer follows the (Groucho) Marxist axiom “Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them…well I have others”, it is quite possible that he could revert to the ones he espoused when he sought election as party leader.
After an election he wins his priorities will be to stay leader, and to win the next election. A “do nothing to rock the boat” praxis is not likely to be a winning one in those circumstances
A man who gets his political advice (instructions?) from Mandelson and his economic advice from Reeves will never have the nouse person to make the reforms to the way the country operates which are so badly required following the ongoing Tory catastrophe since 2010.
A knight of the realm, Sir Keir Starmer, laboured mightly to produce a Visionless Authoritarianism the same as he sought to replace. Truly a Don Quixote for our time!
Time to replace FPTW (First Past The Windmill)
Starmer is apposed to any form of PR. He is a dictator and has ignored Labour Conference completely on this. All doors have been closed to left policies, left candidates and future leadership contenders. Let’s stop kidding ourselves and start to build a real popular left party with Union funding to replace this dead Labour carcus.
The Labour right’s economic “fiscal rules” straight jacket will not prevent environmental collapse reversing it will depend on a real left opposition party to reverse this neo liberal economic madness!
Conservatives remain formidable campaigners, particularly when they are able to frame an election as a single-issue referendum, in this case ULEZ. Then they simply focus is being negative towards the opposition and avoid making their own policies (and record) available for attack. To many that comes over offering certainly and strength.
From that excellent article:
“Under the policy, drivers of vehicles that breach certain pollution limits – less than 6% of inner London’s daily traffic, rising to 15% of vans – are charged £12.50 each time they drive in the designated area. Amid overwhelming evidence both of the success of the scheme, and that air pollution levels breach World Health Organisation guidelines right across Greater London, Khan plans to expand the rules to the rest of the capital next month. Polls consistently show a majority of Londoners support the measure – and even that the more car-dependent outer boroughs are evenly split on it – but there has been vocal opposition from the car lobby, and tabloid culture warriors.”
But the media are not making these points. They are concentrating on gangs of Labour MPs descending on Khan and demanding he drop the policy before the election. This is our climate change policy, as effective as standing in front of an avalanche and asking it to stop.
@sickoftaxdodgers:
It is indeed astonishing that Labour could be so incapable and culpable. It then became theatre of the absurd when Starmer hung his own man out to dry after …
Another excellent article Richard.
I just wanted to point out a typo mistake.. ….”£30 billion a year in interest costs could *not* be introduced by Labour. ” You may have intended the opposite?
Thanks.
I would like to say also, that many ex Labour members (like myself) who are aghast at the backwardness and economic illiteracy of Reeves and the rest of Starmers cabal, think Labour is a dead party for the principled left. Expecting it to change is naive and a waste of energy, far better to offer critique, but to build an alternative left party with Union funding. Its clear that the unessesary “fiscal rules” are much more than electoral pragmatism. More worrying is the links with key establishment figures, The Blair insitute and millionaire funders with interests in private health care and apartheid Israel. They clearly have an ideological agenda to protect the many rich pockets and have CLOSED all democratic means to appose Starmer. No left leader will EVER make it through the PLP voting percentage rules… and all candidates on the left with economic sense are blocked, and party Conference can be ignored routinely. It is in effect a top down centre right party with levers controlled a right wing clique, Labour To Win.
Your thoughts on this would be welcome.
Kind regards.
TUSC is a labour group run and organised by the unions, but gets nowhere. Both the labour and independent socialists running for Frome are union supported, but lost their deposits. We might like union people in this group, but the majority electorate do not.
TUSC has said that they will not stand a candidate against Jamie Driscoll. They have aslo called on the Green Party not to stand against Corbyn whatever he chooses to do. The only TUSC MP, as far as I know, was Dave Nellist.
I tend to agree.
Unions are not the basis for a political programme now.
There was a big lesson in Somerton and Frome, too.
Labour came fifth and the ex-labour independent socialist came sixth.
Labour got 1000 votes and the ex-labour got 600.
Combine the two and they would have come fourth, so it wouldn’t have made that much difference here, but in other constituencies it could mean the loss of the seat.
Rosie Mitchell managed to raise £2700 by a gofundmepage. Not a patch on the other independent, but Driscoll’s had much more publicity.
The new MP, former councillor, Steve Tuckwell, and Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner blame ULEZ for the result. The actual results tell a different story and the Tory Chairman is right when he says that Tories stayed at home, which is what they do when disillusioned by the party. They abstain rather than vote for anyone else.
In 2019 BoJo got 25,351 votes, a majority of 7,210 on a 68.5% turnout. This time the Tory got 13,965, a majority of 495 on a 46% turnout. So the Tory vote was down by 45%. Lot of Tories stayed at home.
Labour’s vote also dropped by a quarter: from 18,141 in 2019 to 13,470 this time. There was a 6.7% swing to Labour but 7.6% was needed to win.
The Lib-Dem vote fell from 3,026 to 526 and the Greens from 1,090 to 893. A Labour agreement with either or both these parties would have won them the seat. If the Lib-Dem defection was to Labour it makes Labour’s result far worse.
As for ULEZ, Labour failed to point out that this was BoJo’s legacy as London Mayor enforced by Grant Shapps when he was Secretary of State for Transport. This allowed the Tories an open goal – they had nothing else to say.
So, the Tory turnout was down by 45% which almost lost them the seat. But Labour’s vote was also down 26%. They would have comfortably won with their 2019 vote. An agreement with the Lib-Dems and Greens would also have won it for them. Uxbridge and South Ruislip is Tory territory. Come the General Election the stay-at-homes will be back. The Tories are not going away.
Starmer Labour deliberately have replaced having “policies” with having “paucities”.
( Paucity – the presence of something in only small or insufficient quantities or amounts.)
They are set to underachieve in every area by following their ” don’t mention the war / don’t make waves” approach.
Paradigm ‘car crash’ interview on BBC Radio Scotland News with Michael Marra, Labour MSP; an incoherent argument that Scotland should send Labour MPs to Westminster to stand up to Labour by not challenging any of his policies, because they are going to be “responsible”, do not have the economic circumstances to do what they did in the 1990s, but fix everthing anyway. This is utter dross. Politicians are now destroying meaning and language.
Politics in Britain is now exclusively about controlling the narrative. Do nothing. Remain clueless. Preach the incoherent. Being in office is all that matters.
It obviously works; at least the political parties all believe it works, because that is the sum and substance..
“his policiies” should be “Starmer’s policies”. For ease of reference, “Starmer’s policies” is a very good ‘catch-all’; it stands for ‘do nothing’, always the subjectively least risky from a position of political uncertainty. Sometimes known by foot-soldiers as leading from the rear.
Starmer’s policies.
https://labourhub.org.uk/2023/07/23/no-change-no-hope-starmer-criticised-after-rejecting-calls-for-bolder-policies-at-labour-policy-meeting-amid-union-fury/
I don’t think he wants to win the next election.