On a Sunday morning when the most obvious conclusion to draw about current political debate in the UK is that the two leading parties are both utterly incompetent, with the ‘also rans' not doing nearly enough to worry them, this headline and subtitle in The Observer is telling:
Starmer allies gripped by fear of Labour complacency amid byelection triumphs
Despite victory in two Conservative safe seats, a Labour government is not a foregone conclusion, say party hawks
The threat to Labour is very obviously not complacency. People are livid about what is happening in this country. What they are is indifferent to the agenda put before them by Labour, largely because there isn't one.
Worse than that, they now know Starmer might have culled his party, but has not achieved his goal when doing so.
They also know he can dither, mightily. That's the surest sign of a man without principles to guide his behaviour. Most people can work that out.
People are not complacent. They're really angry. But standardised, neoliberal, ‘we have to accept the world as it is' politics leaves people with no choice.
I refuse to accept the world as it is. I long for a time when politicians do not do so either. Heaven knows when that might be.
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:
Buy me a coffee!
Einstein words. ‘Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. ‘
Expecting elections of the previously corrupted to improve things is insanity.
‘The People’ must take control of all policy.
The lumpen political and media classes will not stop their thieving until constrained democratically.
If democracy by ‘The People’ is good, more democracy is better.
We could use electronic democracy tomorrow, to stop the catastrophic decisions emanating from parliament.
🙂
I love the notion of the ‘ lumpen petit bourgeoisie ‘, (political and media classes)
I suppose the ‘lumpen bourgeoisie’ would be their overseers.
I’m sure they’d prefer to be referenced as the ‘intelligentsia’, or ‘metropolitan elite’ *
* One of the Radio 4 Today presenters once referred to his position in the ‘metropolitan elite’, without any sense of hubris…
I’d guess their role in the neo-serfdom we now inhabit, is as the praetorian guard for the 1% to which PSR refers, in our oligarchy.
It took the neoliberals the best part of 35 years to change the narrative to “less gov” & the only reason they were able to do so was the massive inflation casued by the Yom Kippur war & subsequent events. The “more gov” narrative is being pushed by a combo of declining living standards and the c;limate disaster. However, inertia, deaf/cowardly politicos and hunger for power (& an unwillingness to offer a narrative outside of ther conventional neoliberal one) means that the political system is stuck.
Thatcher (& Reagan) were the implementers of change in the direction of neoliberalisim – the former having the ruthlessness to drive it. Corbyn could have driven change in the opposite direction – but lacked ruthlessness & also had the media against him, by contrast, Thatcher et al had the media mostly behind her (plus luck – No Falklands moment – no Thatcher 2nd term).
The inability of the political system to change/drive change – means that when it comes (as it will) it will be highly disruptive.
Starmer doesn’t have principles, but he does have a machine-like modus operandi, which is to affect being ‘serious’ at all times. Very Serious People, like Starmer, might impress all of the people some of the time, but they suffer from the flaw that they are very shallow. In reality VSPs are neither deep, nor wise nor, for that matter, in posession of much humanity. This explains why he and his fellow VSPs in the Labour leadership:
– Have a cult-like devotion to the ‘government is like a household’ myth……VSP reason: ‘Sound’ money
– Never ever acknowledge that UK democracy is broken…….VSP reason: FPTP hands on a plate the billionaire press’s power to decide who wins a GE
– Hate ‘tree huggers’…….VSP reason: Sustainability obstructs ‘growth’
– Condone the genocidal actions of the state of Israel in Gaza……VSP reason: The holocaust means Israel is above criticism
VSP robots, such as Starmer promising the same old, same old will lead us to disaster.
Excellent short article. Should be required 1 minute reading for every economics, social and political studies student and every aspiring politician. We live in a critical time facing combined ecological, economic, social and political melt downs. To prevent mass global poverty, resource depletion, irreversible global warming and major social unrest we must get to grips with alternative thinking that you advocate.
And the neo-liberals who want to reduce the size of government, tax externalities in simple and consistent ways, make the economy more productive, give us more economic and social freedoms even to harm ourselves, they can swing on an umpire’s finger.
Here is the world ‘as it is’. Henry Staunton, past Chairman of the Post Office (sacked by Kemi Badenoch, the Business Minister and self-righteous prig) claims he was told to stall Post Office payouts, so the government cold “limp into” the election.
“‘Early on, I was told by a fairly senior person to stall on spend on compensation and on the replacement of Horizon, and to limp, in quotation marks – I did a file note on it – limp into the election,’ Staunton said.
‘It was not an anti-postmaster thing, it was just straight financials. I didn’t ask, because I said ‘I’m having no part of it – I’m not here to limp into the election, it’s not the right thing to do by postmasters.’ The word ‘limp’ gives you a snapshot of where they were.”” (Sunday Times, Guardian)
I wonder when the Telegraph and Mail will be front-paging this? More germane, just how low will the Conservatives stoop to stay in power; because they are already some way below sewer level? Answers on a postcard, please; addressed to 10, Downing Street.
That’s blatant corruption
He has obviously been pushed to his limit
It reminds us that the decision to leave the compensation payouts in the hands of the Post Office was:
a) Deliberate
b) Intended simply to avoid the Government being directly in the ‘firing line’ for delaying payment. It wanted the Post Office to drag its feet in payouts, without the Government being responsible for foot-dragging.
It was, and is unforgivable that the Post Office, the party directly responsible for the disaster, is still being left in charge of compensation. Indeed it is worse; it is despicable.
Everyone in Britain should be writing to their MP to complain; because if they can jail postmasters wholesale for nothing; they can do it to you. I have. Twice. The law failed, Parliaments failed. Nothing works – when you, or yours really need it. You have the proof. Ignored for twenty years, and left to rot; and nobody can say they knew nothing about it. The failures and weaknesses of the Post Office have been public knowledge for years; including convictions being overturned. The result? Precisely nothing. It took a TV drama. Is that what yo wish to rely on?
ENOUGH.
“That’s blatant corruption”.
Well, I trust the Police will be pursuing the matter, and interviewing absolutely everyone involved in the allegation. Now, no delays; no hesitation.
We require retributive justice for all of this. Here is what Staunton went on to allege:
“Staunton, a former chair of WH Smith, alleged Read wrote to the justice secretary, Alex Chalk, last month in an attempt to persuade the government against mass exonerations.
The letter included a legal opinion from the Post Office’s solicitors, Peters & Peters, which suggested many convictions could be defended on appeal, Staunton told the Sunday Times.
He added: ‘Basically it was trying to undermine the exoneration argument. It was, ‘Most people haven’t come forward because they are guilty as charged’ – ie, think very carefully about exoneration.’
Staunton said he told Read [Post Office CEO] the opinions in the letter were not endorsed by him or ‘at least half” of the Post Office’s board members, and that “if this got out, we’d be crucified, and rightly so'” (Guardian).
Thanks, John.
Well, this is jolly. Now Kemi Badenoch is accusing the ex-Post Office Chairman, that she sacked – of lying; and of “failing to get justice for the Postmasters” (Telegraph).
The solution to that problem was available long before Badenoch sacked Staunton. The Government should have removed the Post Office entirely from supervision of the compensation long before. To allow the Post Office, which was responsible for bringing the criminal charges against the Postmasters, for the prosecutions, and for the evidence for the convictions (in some cases now proven in court to be wrongful), mostly based on a faulty computer system; to be placed in charge to supervise, and exercise control over the whole compensation and decision making process to rectify the wrong it had itself inflicted on the Postmasters, was a transparently obvious and egregious conflict of interest. Frankly, even a fool could see the perversity of the solution the Government chose; which makes its egregious character even worse.
Removing the Post Office would, of course no doubt place the Government and Badenoch directly in the responsibility ‘firing line’; where it justly belongs – as the Post Office is simply the Government’s creature. That, of course would never do, because the Post Office now principally serves as the Government’s tethered scapegoat.. The fact that at best the Government has not been supervising or monitoring the Post Office, or shown any interest in what it is doing, until the whole matter became politically unmanageable overnight through a TV drama; itself raises questions requiring urgent answers, I trust either the Post Office Enquiry, or the police investigation will rigorously pursue and discover as soon as possible. None of this provides any excuse for clear ministerial incompetence and neglect of public, civic duty, to offer the kindest take available.
The unedifying spectacle of all those involved in fixing the problem, collapsing quickly into accusation, and counter-accusation of lying, is far beneath the standards of executive management of a crisis we should be entitled to expect of Ministers; but it happens because the Ministers responsible are not up to the task they have set, or are incapable of acting decisively, timeously, or wisely in its execution.
The Buck stops with Government, and if Badenoch doesn’t like the heat, there is an exit door in every kitchen; she would be advised to take it.
Much to agree with
I have just watched Kemi Badenoch’s statement to the House. I have no idea about the details of the spat between Badenoch and Staunton, but as an example of the executive management of a business crisis, it is a comprehensive failure that it came to this; with the Minister appearing to have no idea how to manage a problem, but filled with resentment; if this is her idea of managing “HR”, it is hopeless. Whatever the ‘truth’ this is no way to run the Government department that is supposed to fix the Post Office scandal; to manage the Post Office in its present predicament, and most important of all, bring justice, closure and compensation to the Postmasters. This statement seemed instead, to revolve endlessly around Badenoch’s sense of personal grievance against Staunton. Her statement was notable for being aggressive, dismissive of any disagreement, and sanctimonious; to disagree with her was to politicise.
No good reason has been given by Badenoch why, the Post Office, which has no credibility whatsoever with anyone involved on any side, to do anything (demonstrably illustrated by the odious nature of the current spat with an immediate past Chairman, who lasted only a year); that it is quite clearly not fit or able to conduct the management of compensation. Badenoch has failed to take control of the problem, and fix the management of the Post Office, fit to use for the compensation process; in fact that task is now obviously beyond it; its credibility lies in utter ruins. Real managers realise when drastic action is required; and that time has already past. The Government should have removed the Post Office from control over compensation, and provide the independent organisation under leadership that all parties could trust to execute the task, fairly and competently. This has clearly failed. It is also clear that Badenoch is out of her depth. Aggressive arrogance at the despatch box is not a demonstration of authority or fitness.
Under pressure, the cracks began to show during the statment. There was a leak from inside Badenoch’s department to Sky News about Staunton’s sacking; Staunton learned of his sacking from Sky News. Asked about her investigation of the leak Badenoch was dismissive, saying that there are thousands in her department. When it was pointed out ‘thousands’ should not know about the sacking; Badenoch seemed to try to accuse the critic of politicising the issue. Too easily she resorted to acting as if she was not a Minister accounting for her actions, but an adjudicator deciding the fate of her questioners.
Another questioner challenged her, quite rightly about her quick reaction to the Staunton interview, by resort first to Twitter; by bizarrely telling the questioner to stop using Twitter. Under questioning, too often Badenoch had no answer to the criticisms of continued delay, or became frayed and aggressive in responses. Twitter is a signal of political opportunism in the digital age. It is no way to exercise responsible executive government. Frankly, the fact that and HR problem come to this, a despatch box apologia, was in itself a simple demonstration of immaturity.
As mature government of a crisis, the Post Office scandal is all becoming a sorry sight; but equally clearly, it not being fixed. Badenoch offered no evidence that it was fixed. The can tumbles down the road. It is clear as day that the Post Office should not be in charge of compensation. It is a recipe for disaster; and that is what Badenoch now presides over: a disgrace. Frnakly, nobody is interested in the politician’s personal ‘amour-propre’. What we need is mature, competent, steely, resolute, executive management from Ministers; and we do not have it.
Badenoch appears to be totally out of control.
She thinks she is demonstrating to the Conservative Party that she is made of Prime Ministerial, leadership material. She is glib, managerially naive, has demonstrated ‘de facto’ maladroit leadership skills; her delivery at the despatch box is ill-judged, bullying and unpersuasive under pressure; in short, she is immature.
I watched the clips.
She is grossly incompetent and frankly appears to be an outright bully.
I think John Crace captured the essence of Kemi Badenoch at the despatch box:
“Even the truth is a personal attack on her integrity”.
I confess; I wish I had written that.
Very good
How low?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/feb/16/jobcentres-told-to-stop-referring-benefit-claimants-to-food-banks
The only thing actually being asked to be left in its place is the patronage of politics by wealth.
That’s what this really means; that’s the ‘world as it really is’.
Whether it is the use of the ‘royal family’ in this country or the America system (which is just a legally approved system that most tin pot dictatorships use to be honest) – it is this factor that needs dealing with.
The complacency and incompetence in politics is in the faulty thinking that by accommodating wealth it can be co-opted and made reasonable. It can be managed. History tells us that German democrats thought that this was how they could contain Hitler.
Nope!
This is nonsense. All we have done – or are ‘doing’ – is create a new cabal of even richer individuals who being even more disconnected from society will just want to press home their advantage. They are (probably) no longer human being as we know human beings to be. They are more like Gods I think in behaviour. Or Hitlers. You decide.
Nationalise party political funding in the UK NOW!
Those of us who see – and care desperately about – what has happened to politics in this country are indeed livid. But there are millions who don’t see, or do see and don’t care.
Those who don’t see are either not interested (because they don’t think they can change anything) or so downtrodden/poverty-stricken/miserable that they have no spare capacity to think beyond affording today’s meal.
Those who DO see and don’t care are a. the people behind the neoliberal agenda;
b. the people who benefit from the (accelerating) neoliberal agenda, and c. the people who are willing to attach themselves to the coattails of neoliberalism for the sake of expediency.
Of all the important moments in living memory to have a man like Starmer – emotionless, intent on personal power, politically inept and with no innate values – leading what is laughingly described as the “Labour” Party, this has to be the worst.
People need HOPE. More than ever before in my lifetime. He offers none.
I refuse to accept this status quo. I just don’t know how to make enough noise to start changing it.
Do you see any hope here, because I do.
https://labourhub.org.uk/2024/02/20/a-festival-of-ideas/
At least Will Hutton is is now singing the right tune
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/18/first-step-to-economic-liberation-is-to-tear-up-these-fiscal-rules-will-hutton
Agreed
I too got excited, at first! Yet, actually – no, he isn’t really. The Guardian headline writer – and therefore the paper, at some sort of editorial level – however seems to be.
Look at the contrast between the headline….
“The first step to our economic liberation is to tear up these crippling fiscal rules”
and the paragraph to which, eventually and with some scrambled logic, Hutton’s argument eventually manages to amount. (Para 7 out of 10) This begins with…
“…day-to-day current public spending should be balanced by day-to-day current tax receipts…”
This hardly sounds like MMT; more like another version of ‘balanced books’ by another name.
Although the headline seemed more promising – but he weasel word is “these” in the phrase “these fiscal rules”. This is not much more than – if we don’t like ‘these’ ones, we can do better with others. The fundamental point seems to have got lost along the way and we are back in the game of inventing rules. Hutton uses the befogging euphemism of “reframing” – so the the emperor can be hastily reclothed.
Agreed
Lukewarm Keynesianism, at best
Perhaps Starmer should read this book over his half-term break.
https://labourhub.org.uk/2024/02/18/learning-from-labours-history/
When Sunak says that Labour hasn’t got a plan, he is, of course, correct, and most people are aware of this. That is why he keeps saying it. Unfortunately for him many seem to have already factored that in to their voting decision in the next general election.
The decision that we make at the g.e. is between a Labour government that, if it has a plan for a better society it’s a very well kept secret, and a Conservative government whose plan is to screw us all over.
Meanwhile Labour, who one might have thought could not possibly lose the election seem to be doing their level best to actually do so simultaneously becoming increasingly paranoid. One apologist for Labour is calling an SMP motion for an immediate cease fire in Gaza a political stunt: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pjyzLcGKWxg
This was a revealing piece from Byline TV, posing the question, “Why have Tory voters in Wellingborough stopped voting?”
https://youtu.be/CW2YbeZbZqs?si=hhYrh8mwawbqvmNu
Some of the reasons given:
No trust in politics. The way the country is being run. An unelected PM. The PPE scandal. Tory corruption: Michelle Mone. One man says “voted for Boris, never Voting Tory again”. Brexit lies: e.g. Brexit not explained properly, £32 (350) million paid into the NHS. Everything costs more than it did before Brexit. A general Dissatisfaction with politics. Lots of political apathy. many have given up on politics completely. Politicians make promises and don’t stick to them. no point in voting. Lack of investment in the local area.
If the Tories do face electoral wipeout at the next election, you would hope this would be a warning to all political parties. You take the electorate for granted at your peril.
Yes, individuals have being cruelly treated for too many generations now by the neo liberal get rich quickly by easy at arms length exploitation of the same to take the postwar political status quo for granted. Then add on to the Ecocide and economic oppression the Democide of recently dead and dying of a cocked up Johnson government non response to Covid and its ongoing social health crisis. We are all experiencing tragedy.
Nigel Farage now seems to be the concocted by shady interests socio political third option to calm the electorate with a belief that there is a real political choice. Taking over that role from the Lib Dems. I do not see that working in quite the same way as in the past. These far right hotheads may end up disintegrating what little is left of GB social cohesion. There is just too much social iniquity. How this harrowing grief and righteous rage will manifest is unpredictable. However, when it does, the last to know will be the useful idiots and treacherous carpetbaggers now running the country.
Thank you, Sara.
With regard to Farage, his backers are not that shady.
A bit of history: In the mid 1990s, Murdoch got scared by Major’s approach to New Labour for media reform. In addition to wooing Blair, so well before Blair’s visit to Hayman island, Murdoch determined to have an organisation that would allow him to dictate the agenda and pressurise parties and governments.
Murdoch helped Farage’s faction unseat Alan Sked as leader of UKIP and broaden the party’s policy offer, so that it could attack from both right (e.g. immigration and EU membership) and left (e.g. abolition of university fees) and divert attention from Murdoch.
The Murdochs and Farage are close. On tv, Farage has confessed to obtaining Murdoch’s approval to discuss their relationship and even appear on reports etc. featuring Murdoch.
Farage is not Murdoch’s sole UK attack dog. In the late 1980s, Paul Staines (later Guido Fawkes) came to the attention of Murdoch. Murdoch thought that not only would Staines be useful to break stories that could then be reported, Staines could also get the dirt on and harass opponents.
Leveson II could have brought this out, but it was not to be. The moment that Corbyn talked about Leveson II, he painted a target on his back.
Sadly, whilst Starmer appears to be offering ‘more of the same’ on the economic and foreign policy front, the electorate seem more inclined to stay home than vote for any of those parties offering alternative agendas. It is as though ‘hope’ is considered an expletive.
I’m sure much of this is down to the ‘press’ (drawn to include social media and simple propaganda/disinformation/prejudice reinforcement). So why are such tools so effective? Has fear triumphed? Are people now less concerned with ‘how’ their living standards are maintained, and more concerned that they ‘are’ maintained? Have we already entered a ‘war mindset’?
I note Starmer has withdrawn support for a Labour candidate for mentioning a possibility that appeared on the New York Times’ front page on 2 December, using Israeli data, and which is still an open question. Is fascism more likely to come through Labour now than through the Tories?
We still have time – and some of us the freedom – to stop this. But only if we acknowledge the danger, unify, and mobilise. Whether through union action or simply talking to our neighbours we must demonstrate one thing above all others – that fear cannot win.
The alternative to doing that now is to attempt that against an authoritarian regime, where many many more of us will pay a much higher price to reclaim our freedom.
Sadly, under our FPTP system, the two main parties benefit as much from people not voting as people voting. Traditionally the Tories, but now, off the back of Brexit, Covid and epic Tory corruption, it’s Labour.
One of the main criticisms in the video above was about the lack of investment in the local area, There were four independent candidates in Wellingborough, yet the stay-at-home mob didn’t think it worthwhile voting for one of them.
The message that “they are all the same” and “voting changes nothing” has most definitely cut through.
Also in the Byline video one woman talked about the importance of voting before adding “But you can’t tell people what to do can you?” Actually, you can, It’s called compulsory voting and it’s the norm in many countries.
As for Starmer being more authoritarian. Yes, of course. Starmer has always been a loyal servant of the Deep State as evidenced by his time as DPP and Labour’s abstentions on our rights to protest.
“Sadly, under our FPTP system, the two main parties benefit as much from people not voting as people voting”.
Yes, not voing is taken to represent fulsome approval of the electoral system. People who vote for nobody, out of disgust are taken to represent approbation of the current system. The system works exclusively for ‘Party’; and that means the two Parties that are quietly operating a political Cartel that protects them, their backers; and shafts everyone else. In that sense only, it “works”.
By declaring “I am a Zionist” and giving his unequivocal and support to Israel, Starmer has painted himself into a corner from which he cannot escape. He’s wiped out anything and anyone from the Corbyn years by using his “antiantisemitism” dogmatism. “You aren’t welcome in my Labour Party”
As a result, he’s forced to condemn anyone who utters a word or sentence with what might be perceived as an anti-ISRAEL stance. Including, I might add, even those who are repeating what the Israeli media is saying. If he doesn’t, he lays himself open to the “Labour hasn’t changed” attack.
It’s yet another example of his COMPLETE POLITICAL INEPTITUDE.
Streeting on Sky this morning, btw, appeared to be telling people in Rochdale not to bother to vote.
That was bizarre
Some democrat he is
Thank you, Richard.
The thing is, and this goes back to Streeting’s days as a student at Cambridge and the forces he called upon to help against opponents, these forces, now donors, probably want low turn out. They just need to mobilise their narrow group of adherents. They also feel it’s good politics for Labour politicians to run against Labour. It worked for Blair in the 1990s, if not the noughties.
Thank you, Hannah.
I have family overseas and often work overseas.
You are right to say that Starmer has painted himself into a corner. Starmer and the professional managerial class he typifies should not kid themselves that this goes unnoticed abroad and may have repercussions.
I caught some bits of the UK, US and French Sunday shows yesterday. What these talking heads rabbit on about is so detached from the reality of most of their compatriots and abroad is unbelievable.
There was a careers fair in my family’s ancestral village on Saturday. A relatively well known British business family is setting up shop there. Readers will be familiar with one of the scions of that family. My pseudonym features in one of his books. One family member was on site to explain how they see the island as a launchpad to diversify their investments, not just take advantage of tax. The world is changing. Our elite appears blissfully unaware.
That’s the dogmatism of the Labour right. The dogmatic belief in incrementalism- that it’s somehow always sensible to do nothing, and do it very incrementally.
We live in a time of converging crises – a climate crisis, a biodiversity crisis, economic crises, a demographic crisis. All of these acute crises demand rapid and radical change but at the very moment when the Conservatives are on the ropes, in steps the worst possible iteration of the Labour Party.
A cynic might think that the Labour Party’s principle function is to give a veneer of ‘democracy’ to our mono party state and to manage the decline of our nation for the benefit of the asset stripping 0.1% but surely not?
Finally I’ll say that we, the electorate need to take a hard look at ourselves. If we continue to allow the handful of billionaires who own most of our media to dictate how we should vote, we will continue to be burdened with weak and insipid politicians devoid of vision and courage serving the interests of the afore mentioned 0.1%!
I just wish you would start up a party of common sense Richard.
Not my role…..
Read Guardian comments on articles and always you get lots of posters moaning on about the National Debt created by the government. You rarely get them moaning about the National Debt created by private sector bankers despite the terrible house price bubble they’ve been allowed to create for over five decades by both the Conservative and Labour parties. The cognitive dissonance is massive in the UK. Poorly educated people pretending that they aren’t but when challenged always respond by saying people are too busy making ends meet to spare the time understanding how the economy and monetary system works!