As John McTernan, Tony Blair's political secretary, has noted in The Guardian:
Keir Starmer has everything going for him.
However, as he then notes:
Or nearly everything. Labour currently lacks one vital quality: confidence. While heading for a victory bigger than Tony Blair's landslide of 1997, the party appears to be too frightened to fight. Whenever the Tories do something profoundly amoral or un-British – such as telling refugees to “fuck off”, as their vice-chair, Lee Anderson, recently did – Labour seems scared of going on the attack. (And what Anderson said should be stated in its full unbowdlerised form.) But, like showbiz, successful electoral politics requires swagger, plus a desire to run towards the sound of gunfire, not away from it.
He hits the nail on the head. There is a problem with Starmer. He is, as I defined the breed in my 2011 book, The Courageous State, a cowardly politician. As I said then:
Cameron and Osborne, with their allies Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander ....have become the apotheosis of something that has been thirty years in the making: they are the personification of what I call the cowardly state. The cowardly state in the UK is the creation of Margaret Thatcher, although its US version is of course the creation of Ronald Reagan. It was these two politicians who swept neoliberalism into the political arena in 1979 and 1980 respectively following the first neoliberal revolution in Chile in 1973 that saw the overthrow of the democratically elected Allende government by General Pinochet. Since then its progress has been continual: now it forms the consensus of thinking across the political divide within the UK, Europe and the US.
The economic crisis we are now facing is the legacy of Thatcher and Reagan because they introduced into government the neoliberal idea that whatever a politician does, however well-intentioned that action might be, they will always make matters worse in the economy. This is because government is never able, according to neoliberal thinking, to outperform the market, which will always, it says, allocate resources better and so increase human well-being more than government can.
That thinking is the reason why we have ended up with cowardly government. That is why in August 2011, when we had riots on streets of London we also had Conservative politicians on holiday, reluctant to return because they were quite sure that nothing they could do and no action they could take would make any difference to the outcome of the situation. What began as an economic idea has now swept across government as a whole: we have got a class of politicians who think that the only useful function for the power that they hold is to dismantle the state they have been elected to govern while transferring as many of its functions as possible to unelected businesses that have bankrolled their path to power.
That, I think, is what Starmer is.
He shares a characteristic with all the cowardly politicians of the UK: he went to Oxford. I accept he only did his masters there, but go there, he did. And as Simon Kuper notes in his book 'Chums', this matters.
Kuper's thesis is that the Tories at Oxford in the 80s learned politics without any substance or conviction. It was all about charade and show and nothing about doing or changing anything because why would Tories want to do that when the status quo suited them very well? So, what motivated those Tories was personal gain, and that was it.
Labour politics of the same era at Oxford was even worse. It too was about charade and show and nothing about doing or changing anything, but in their case that was because they learned the charade and show from the education system but never acquired any conviction as to what to do with whatever skills they acquired. They became mere operators of a system they did not even know how to question, because questioning of any substantial sort that might suggest change was needed was simply not on the agenda at Oxford then (or in almost any university now).
The result is that the Tories became cowardly politicians on the make for themselves and Labour has just produced cowardly politicians of the likes of Starmer, Reeves, Cooper, Miliband and (off-stage but still around) Balls, who are conviction-free zones but who think they can present a 'better-management', technocratic argument without ever questioning whether the system they are managing is failing, when it so obviously is.
Starmer lacks confidence because he has no idea what he and his government will be about because he has not got the convictions to inform his decision-making. And it shows.
Labour might be in the lead, but it's painful to watch how bad it is.
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:
“Starmer lacks confidence because he has no idea what he and his government will be about because he has not got the convictions to inform his decision-making.”
Someone once quite aptly referred to this kind of politician as a “weathercock”. Let’s hope for more signposts to point the country in the right direction.
Sadly, I think that Starmer is a Trojan Horse sent by the neoliberal establishment to drive the Labour Party back into line with the establishment way of thinking after the radical leftwing ideas of Jeremy Corbyn took hold. He was elected on ten pledges, all of which he has since abandoned to revert to a well right of centre perspective that the masses who joined the Labour Party under Corbyn are truly dismayed by. I do not anticipate a change of direction if he is elected by a working majority; his win may be purely to remove the Tories.
With a strong track record of broken promises, what might we expect if Starmer became PM? His failure to commit to ditching the ‘Two Child policy’ was really telling. I am bracing for yet more neoliberal policies with austerity mark 2 as he sells us on the deficit myth! It is vitally important that the general public become convinced that more of the same cuts to public spending are unnecessary in a fiat currency. We must increase demand for the priorities of the Green New Deal to stimulate the economy while rescuing our planet.
After sailing to Brazil as a young ‘eco- nomad’ working on boats, I was in Rio to see the yachts finish the Cape to Rio Race. That year it was just one leg of three in the Atlantic Triangle of yacht races. I became friendly with the crew of British Steel captained by the late Rob James. Most of the remaining crew on board had paid to do the race, and I couldn’t help noticing how many of them were Chartered Accountants. Rob James told me that:
“Inside every Chartered Accountant is a Lion Tamer trying to get out!”
So if Richard Murphy is, among other things, a Chartered Accountant, is there a ‘Lion Tamer’ trying to get out? I think he there is, and his ‘Lion’ is neoliberalism. If that is true, then the real ‘Lions Den’ has to be the Oxford Union Debating Society where so many of the Tory MPs studied ‘PPE;’ Politics, Philosophy and Economics of the Neoliberal variety. At the Oxford Union those who believe they were born to rule, practice how to speak persuasively, primarily in order to protect their wealthy entitlement and privilege well past graduation.
Richard, if you had the chance to ‘Enter the Lions Den’ in an Oxford Union Debate on Money and Economics, would you take up the challenge to ‘crack the whip’ of real common sense and reverse the toxic indoctrination of young minds, before they become drunk on Neoliberal ‘Kool Aid’? A debate on MMT might be a controversial enough challenge for the incoming President of the Oxford Union to consider it for the debate schedule. Initially you might face a rather hostile audience, but I believe your logic could tame those in the debating chamber. Are you interested in taking on this challenge if it can be arranged?
OK, I know about the Monty Python skit that featured a terribly dull Accountant who wanted to be a Lion Tamer. Rob James’s comment meant no disrespect to his crew, none of whom were in the least bit dull or timid. So no, I am not suggesting Richard is dull, I think astute and logical offer a more accurate description, so please don’t take offence at my whacky post. The point is, the desperate need to dramatically change the thinking of our MPs in the UK, inspiring them to embrace the bold and radical economic perspective of MMT.
I might do it if it was Covid secure
Great post.
“government is never able,….to outperform the market, which will always…….allocate resources better and so increase human well-being more than government can”
Adding, the situation is perhaps worse. When, econometrically, it can be shown (proved) that markets fail utterly to correctly price a good, the imbeciles switch on cognitive dissonance and ignore the evidence. This happens every single day.
In the case of the vile-liebore clowns: “Starmer, Reeves, Cooper, Miliband and (off-stage but still around) Balls”, given the above they are thus functionally incapable of “presenting a ‘better-management’, technocratic argument” because that would require considering realities which does not happen because their cognitve dissonance subroutines automatically switch in. They are little better than Stage 1 A.I.s – pre-progammed with neo-con rules & knowledge. Were they Stage 3 or 4 A.Is they would be capable of reasoning & analysing info from diverse sources.
Mike Parr,
While I agree with much of what you write – and am as despaired as anyone by the current feeble & timid state of the Labour party – I am turned off by your repeated use (in every post you make) of the nauseating name you have chosen for the party. Do you think it really help your cause?
Mr/Mrs Anrigaut, I don’t really have “a cause”, sniper from the cheap seats might be a fair characterisation. The Liebore moniker fits quite well: they lie (a la Johnson) and could win a gold if the Olypmics had a “bore” category. As for nauseating, Liebore’s support for the vile-tories continuing benefit limits for families with more than 2 children – I don’t know about you but I find that pretty nauseating.
PSR did a pretty good post which dissects Liebore quite nicely. Taking one step back (from party politics), once one recognises that the whole neo-con game is based on a category error i.e. Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” then the only question to be answered is, this being the case why does any sane person vote for political parties based on a category error? (markets = good, state = bad).
Hayek’s book was based on what he saw in Austria in the 1920 – 30s – first socialism and then fascism. He then made two assumptions: a)that socialism facilitated fascism b) free markets would stop/prevent fascism. My Austrian economist friend cannot look at the book without bursting out with laughter.
Thatcher et al swallowed the book hook-line & sinker mainly because it gave some intellectual gloss to the greed/me,me,me philosophy which is what passes for the intellectual quagmire that underpins “modern” vile-torism and vile-lieboresim. Labour? That died years ago.
Keep in mind, it is now impossible to have a discussion on the above with any mainstream UK politico, they are either too thick, or as I noted, switch on the cognitive dissonance.
I’m Corbynite in the sense of ‘play the policy, not the person’. I refuse to use Keith or Liebor or anything except NuNuLabor.
Mike
No one is suggesting the Labour party is anything other than the disgraceful entity you describe. It is just your puerile use of playground names that people object to.
Starmer talks of levelling up and getting rid of the Class Ceiling yet hasn’t even got the courage to support PR which would help in this, by ensuring everyone’s votes count and that we all get ‘a say’.It may encourage non-voters to vote and even attract Lib Dem voters to the Labour Party.Over the long term it will ensure Labour has a good say in government but of course they are obsessed with getting ‘a majority’.I’ve even heard Tories say it [PR]will be the end of Tory Government for good and yet Labour seems unable to understand this and grasp the bull by the horns.Only once in my life has my vote really counted because of our awful system where government’s supported by a minority of people can get [huge] majorities
So much Starmer can offer as regards this, Lord’s reform, the environment, dealing with corruption but I feel no hope when I hear politicians speak.
Starmer talks of growth growth growth’ and GDP [An absurd measure as it includes bad things as well as good]but these measures are damaging our planet.
I want to see this foul government gone asap but have no hopes for what will replace it.
We need to look at countries like Sweden, Norway, Finland to see how they act on issues when their societies seem so much more equal and well run than ours.We need co-operation and not ideology forits own sake.
Thank you for an interesting read
A good well-blanced piece today by Andrew Rawnsley in the Observer:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/20/haunted-by-defeats-keir-starmer-playing-it-safe-but-optimism-missing
Andrew Rawnsley says absolutely nothing other than full marks to Starmer for wanting to do fiscal flagellation! He says this because fundamentally he’s a lazy monetary system illiterate Tory still living in the Stone Age!
This is a really interesting post to be honest. I’ve delved into a bit of political philosophy recently and here are some thoughts:
In terms of being cowardly, there is cause to think so. Labour has been rejected by the electorate more times than the Tories. But how much of this is to do with party funding, the media, the boundary commission, the parliamentary system, the Establishment/the rich is another matter? Answer: A lot. We have to consider that British ‘democracy’ is not that good for a start. Labour has been made to fail by the political system and the tributaries into it in my view.
So I think that Labour’s ‘apparent’ rejection by voters has hurt the party a lot psychologically over the years. They are only human after all and they are operating in a system that to me at least is biased towards the needs of the rich. So, in order to get somewhere, Labour have become too supine in my view in order to get ‘approval’ from the shadow perma-elite who actually run the country. This perma-elite had their chance in 1979 and they took it and will keep it, like they keep their money.
But is Labour’s plight because of the agonistic nature of democratic politics itself? Some language:
Antagonism is a related term of agonism.
‘As nouns the difference between agonism and antagonism is that agonism is competitive struggle (especially political) while antagonism is a strong natural dislike or hatred; antipathy.’
Agonism though is known for a number for a number of traits which could be seen as rather negative and also obviously weaken it (1) It seeks to accommodate ideas – even radical ones – not eradicate them (but does this under the label of ‘pluralism’ of all things). It is also known to be fatalistic – there as an acceptance of events as ‘pre-determined’. It also is bounded by the political system which is assumed to work, be fair and beyond reproach.
The politics that this has left us with is very poor politics. It’s also very confusing. Reading Chantel Mouffe, she talks of how market thinking – the likes of Giddens – created a ‘consensus’ about how things should be (the Third Way). The agonistic way of politics with parties vying with each other over ‘big ideas’ has actually stopped functioning as far as big ideas are concerned. There, thinking on big ideas seems to be all agreement now – look at Reeves and Starmer talking about how they are going to be dealing with crises that have been created by the Tories and talking about them as if they are natural occurrences that cannot be overcome (fatalism, and pluralism).
Now they want to compete over how accepted phenomena (poverty, unemployment, inequality) are managed – not how to change things or solve them (as you note above – it is the only place where politicians have any freedom – the micro-management of stuff which is rubbish as that’s why you have local Councils!).
Personally, from my working class background I prefer my political parties to be dead set against each other to be honest in some way because of the way power in this country actually works. I actually prefer antagonism to be honest because there is a clear dislike for the other side – you know where you stand. But the problem with antagonism is that it can go too far and can lead into the most worst case scenario of all – Fascism, where the solutions to problems are mostly unacceptable – in fact Fascism’s solution to everything is perpetual war. And I deplore Fascism from Left or Right.
Instead, antagonism is now deployed in other more peripheral areas – identity politics for example. If you want to see the value of agonism, go online where it’s OK to be antagonistic there apparently and upset people. And look how popular and easy it is to say something on Twitter or whatever and upset people. So even though we do not have a competition over big ideas, we have competition over identity instead – creating therefore a faux politics. Antagonism in politics is all aimed at outsiders now – immigrants and other foreigners. Unless you are a Troy of course wanting rich immigrants and foreigners.
The faux politics that Labour and the Tories are playing is that they disagree on the big ideas, when in fact they agree about them – markets, unemployment etc. They are just playing for percentages. And nothing will change.
The whole thing is theatre. Because it enables the big issues to be untouched. Mass distraction politics rules instead.
So – Labour – cowardly or what? Definitely maybe. But also intellectually stunted.
My objection to Laboured – using some of the theory above is that:
1. There seems to be no recognition from the party as to just how radical the Tories have been in destroying what New Labour bequeathed them in 2010. The austerity has been cruelly over-done, BREXIT has been a complete disaster and Covid was mis-managed. Labour’s agonistic fatalism and accommodation of other ideas (Third Way) has destroyed Labour’s critical faculties and hobbled its desire to change our country, replacing it with tinkering.
2. Labour – bounded by its respect for its Parliament is blind to the need for correcting the political system (such as PR) – it is looking up at something that is actually no longer deserves to be on the pedestal it is on. Parliamentary democracy in the UK is done. It is weak and needs to be rebuilt. Boris proved that beyond any doubt. But also Labour maybe attracted to the
protection this crappy system will give them to make a mess of things.
3. Labour has come to terms with the Establishment’s back seat rule of the country in the most dishonest and craven way. It has sought their agreement to letting them in. This means that the undemocratic nature of our system will never be addressed.
The big clue here is in the treatment of radical ideas under agonism. Note how our Left-wing radicalism is treated when compared to the right wing radical destruction of the public sector, the economy etc., under the Tories. Why under an agonism that proports to accept radicalism was Corbyn rejected and Cameron/Boris accepted?
The answer is money, the answer is the Establishment, it’s media, the answer is Russian oligarchs , the answer is BREXIT, Cambridge Analytica. The answers that Carole Cadwaladr and others fought so hard to reveal is that far from being modern, we are a feudal society ran by an Establishment going back to our earliest formation as a country.
The answer is that political agonism is not even agonism in this country – the answer is that this is all driven by the antagonism of the feudal establishment in this country against the common people. And they have this down to a fine art.
The only answer to that is a new form of antagonism in response. This antagonism needs to be based in ethics and morality first. It needs to realise that hegemony is part of agonism – that our very democracy is not democratic – that it is hegemonic – turbo-charged by Thatcherism. This hegemony has justified the need for antagonism towards it since 2010 if not before in my view.
This new antagonism is where a new Left could assert itself in my view. A Left that repudiates the science of Fascism, that encompasses some of the great challenges of our times – such as environmentalism and PR and is based in ethics and morality based more on Jesus Christ – the greatest radical in my opinion who ever lived. A new Left that will come to terms with the Establishment’s abuse of their power by using the tax system to limit the power of the Establishment to do this.
And out in the real world, there is growing realisation that life is getting harder for no good reason. The time seems to be right. But the intellectual paucity in Labour at the moment is at critical levels, as is its lack of backbone (but the latter needs the former). It’s principles are governed by the party political (as John Warren points out), it’s very inward looking.
Labour seems to blame the electorate for it’s lack of success and has all but abandoned them and walked instead into the arms of the Establishment for a nod and a wink.
That’s pathetic as far as I am concerned and it simply will not do.
Thanks
Good read
Thank you.
It would have been even better if I could write better English.
‘Unless you are a Troy of course wanting rich immigrants and foreigners’ was meant to say ‘Unless you are a Tory of course wanting the money from rich immigrants and foreigners’.
Mouffe looks at liberalism through of all people – the critical eye of Carl Schmitt – the Nazi philosopher ‘ he who said ‘He who makes the exception is sovereign’. She only uses Schmitt as a lens or eyepiece, she’s not advocating him any more than that. But it does highlight how a rational democracy needs to counter extremism of any sort, and whether it is capable of doing so whilst trying to be pluralist. In other words, can a democratic society use/justify hegemonic methods in preventing potentially or evidentially destructive hegemony?
The answers for me is yes, and the methods are (1) only in a system of proportional representation and (2) only using the tax system – both.
Another way to think of Starmer is as the security state candidate for PM:
https://novaramedia.com/2021/03/02/keir-starmer-is-a-long-time-servant-of-the-british-security-state/
Whether Labour then displaces the Tory Party or not, its name will be trashed and any renationalisation agenda forestalled for another decade or two. Mission accomplished.
What you and the other commenters seem to forget is that the largest and most cohesive voting bloc (with the highest propensity to vote) is made up of the members of households owning their own homes and other assets. The net private wealth of households is approaching £17 trillion. A large share of this net wealth is accumulated economic rents – largely accumulated during the post-GFC monetary easing using various whizzo schemes such as QE.
Individually, they believe they are doing the best they can for themselves and their nearest and dearest, but, collectively, they tend to behave in a selfish and short-sighted manner. They will ferociously oppose any policy that might extract or diminish their accumulated net wealth even by one penny or discombobulate their current comfortable existences in the slightest. The Tory supporting press acts as their sentries and advocates and sets the agenda for the main broadcasters.
If Labour is to win it must secure the support of a large share of these voters who previously voted Tory. The nationalists, the Greens and the Lib Dems have the ability to queer the pitch in many seats that are direct Labour-Tory contests and to allow the Tories to win by default.
I can understand Labour’s caution. Advancing policies that might charge the blood of those who would support unashamedly social democratic policies has the potential to secure the support of maybe 15% of the electorate, but it could repel many of the other 85%.
However, I agree that there are policies, such as a restructuring of the economic regulation of utilities to allow statutory representation of the collective interests of final consumers and service-users that would bring the current managements and owners to heel, that mightn’t charge the blood of activists but they could have a profound beneficial impact on ordinary voters’ daily lives. But Labour is either too ignorant or too stupid to contemplate them.
I struggle to find any coherence in this
I think you are wasting my time, and other reader’s time.
Mr Hunt, your post was in two parts. To some extent, the first part (voting blocks, self interest etc) is answered (confirmed) by Dan Evan’s book “A Nation of Shopkeepers”. I have yet to read the book but Novara Media interviewed the author for 90 minutes on the book. The analysis in the book is interesting and partly confirms some of the points you make (about self interest etc). As for the next election, strategic voting might occur such as to deliver the optimum result – a coalition. Liebore with a big majority will only lead to vile-tory 2, and perhaps a gradual slide to fascism – because people see no change.
The second part/last para proposes a quasi managerial approach towards the regulation of profit-maximising monopolies. This has been tried for +/- 33 years and failed. Statutory representation on what? The boards of the companies? the regulators? Putting to one side details such as: how would you select people to sit on boards/regulators, it ignores the fiduciary duty of companies to maximise returns for “investors”. The question to be answered is: how to pull the monopolies back into public ownership such that costs to the state are minimised, whilst the services provided continues. Liebore, has turned its face against this, and appears to fully support the status quo (= profit gouging).
Paul T
I don’t think that we are forgetting anything Paul to be honest. That ‘voting bloc’ you are talking about is about to be hurt/is being hurt by Tory policy and they are about I think to punish the Tories next year for their higher mortgages.
All Labour has to do is turn up. But then the problem is will they help those affected by high interest rates? It could be a another 1997 moment except this time Labour will do even less than Blair and Brown did keeping to Tory PSBR plans. We could be looking at a one term Labour government.
And how does that benefit anyone – even Labour?
And what about the Red Wall vote? BREXIT is now recognised more widely as the shit-show many of us knew it would be – what will be Labour’s response to that? Another missed opportunity?
And yet another voting bloc Paul is all those people who lost loved ones during Covid.
My view is that the Tory party are done already. Labour has a huge opportunity but seemingly no appetite to capitalise on it or even work with others because they are a party first and foremost that serves itself – not the people who vote for it.
On this basis, Labour will only see one term – a second term is possible depending on how quickly the Tories pick themselves up though.
But if people do not feel change, the next election after 2024 might have the lowest turnout ever and that loss of belief in our political system will have catastrophic consequences on our ability to solve our problems.
I think there are a few things going on:
1. Triangulation – There is broadly accepted political wisdom seems to be that political parties need to appeal to right-wing voters in marginal constituencies. Hence all the Flag fancying and pint pulling. I actually don’t think this is true any more, and Labour could be more radical but…
2. They need to signal to the establishment and the media that they won’t rock the boat and will keep the status quo broadly as it is, because…
3. They need to keep their donors happy. As the late Robin Williams put it “Politicians should wear sponsor jackets like Nascar Drivers. Then we know who owns them.”
4. Finally, one would presume that they are also keeping their powder dry for when the election is called.
It is as though critics believe Starmer is promising nothing . He seems to be adopting or at least not opposing the wicked ideas of the Tories. There is an unspoken belief that he will change when elected and move leftward. Why? What if he goes ahead with the complete destruction of everything the 1945 Labour Government bequeathed us . Including the NHS. He joined the Trilateral Commission secretly in 2017. His fellow members included two CIA directors. There is a photo of him taken with Mike Pompeo who threatened to prevent Corbyn becoming PM even if he won he 2019 Election. The aim of that group is to put an end top popular interest in politics which is described as “too much democracy”. It believes democracy should be run by elites. Ordinary people should reduced to its proper state of apathy and obedience. A previous member ,Barry Goldwater described the group as an effort to create a worldwide economic power superior to national governments. Looking at the state the world is in it looks as though that aim is being achieved. The Tony Blair Institute has similar aims. Starmer as we know is completely in thrall to Blair . Mandelson has an unhealthy relationship with him too. Mandelson has also been a member of the Commission. Starmer never told the Labour leadership of his membership . Corbyn would certainly have stopped it. His leadership of what is a democratic socialist party ( it says so on every membership card) is based on venal lies. I am ashamed to say I voted for him because of those lies. There must be a reason for him joining this extreme right wing group which is vehemently opposed to any progressive politics. Blair is exactly the same. What if Starmer is about to eradicate socialism in our country. Is it what he intends? . Are the public and the pundits anticipating a different character in office? His henchmen and women are lining up behind him. Individuals who might challenge him are ruthlessly silenced or expelled. There is an old saying “if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck then it is a duck. I hope I am wrong .
What a weird situation that the Labour Party has turned itself into a “Will-of-the-Wisp” party in order to get elected. None of its supporters can tell you what important and necessary policies it stands for but get really aggressive when you point this out! A bit like Brexit I suppose chasing a fantasy so perhaps not that weird. English people in particular have become delusional and that doesn’t bode well for the future!
https://labouroutlook.org/2023/08/21/the-issue-of-small-boat-crossings-is-the-cutting-edge-of-an-overall-racist-campaign-diane-abbott-mp/
This is why labour will not tell you what they stand for any more. They will be suspended, and then not allowed to stand at the next election as a labour candidate.
Abbott hasn’t yet been ejected from the party, like Corbyn was (before he was given membership again, although not allowed to stand for the party) but she probably will be after this article. They’ll find a reason for doing it.
I think the reason they become angry is because they do not like to be caught in this dilemma.
https://labouroutlook.org/2023/08/20/apsana-begum-mp-the-marketisation-of-higher-education-has-failed-students-and-staff-alike/
Here’s another brave one, someone who stands on picket lines when told not to.
Unfortunately she wasn’t brave enough to stand up for Stop the War, but only 11 labour MPs signed the petition, and then they all withdrew after being threatened with expulsion.
Is Starmer a coward or really Sir Tory Starmer in drag? The SNP answered that question a long time ago, they’ve won every Holyrood election since 2007, and every Westminster election since 2015, despite having the full force of the British media thrown at them with the exception of the National.
Sorry but that doesn’t make sense. Starmer wasn’t an MP in 2007. And the SNP have never won a Westminster election. They would be in power if they had.
@JenW
To answer your comments the SNP has had the most politicians in the UK Parliament since 2015 and it really is bullshit for Starmer suporters to argue he must hold his fire on policy because of the British media. The SNP did not despite the relentless attacks by that self-same media with the exception of the National. Ipso facto the alternative argument that Starmer is holding his fire because he’s really Sir Tory Starmer a Trojan horse in the Labour Party fares much better by comparison.
Sorry but that still doesn’t make sense. I’ll leave you to your imagination.
Richard, I would take issue with the description of the 1973 coup in Chile as “the first neoliberal revolution”. It wasn’t a neoliberal coup in today’s understanding of the word neoliberal: it was engineered by the USA to depose a socialist president democratically elected by the Chilean people. Nor was it the first such interference by the USA in the politics of South America: Operation Brother Sam had aided a military coup in Brasil in 1963 to depose the socialist government of João Goulart and many more American interventions across the region have subsequently occurred.
Senator McCarthy may have been discredited by the mid-1950s, but his legacy was the conflation of socialism and communism which persists to this day in the USA (I know plenty Americans who consider the moderate socialism of Western Europe to be communistic). The USA has dabbled in politics across the entire South American continent to unseat left-leaning governments, impose extreme right-wing politics and promote American business interests. In other words the policy was as much about self-interest and extraction of wealth as it was about preventing the spread of communism and the best interests of the native peoples were never on the table.
When I lived in Brasil in the 1970s it was impossible not to be aware of the staggering inequality there and it was very obvious that the rest of South and Central America were just as unequal. That was what kick-started my political awareness. The role of the USA in ensuring that inequality was also very apparent despite the tight media control by the military government in Brasil. It was apparent to me even back then that the only way South and Central America could prosper for all its peoples was by electing socialist governments through fair democratic elections. History has shown that was never to be and the USA’s success in ensuring that may well have been the template for neoliberalism as we currently understand it.