The thought occurred to me overnight that Keir Starmer is fast heading to emulate the glorious achievements of Liz Truss.
Of course, history does not repeat itself exactly, and he might not, as yet, have created the sorts of crises that she did. But there is, undoubtedly, a growing feeling that he is a lame-duck prime minister, elected to office without a clue as to what he wanted to do and clearly without the competence to work what might be now that he is in Downing Street.
There are, though, similarities. Truss let her Chancellor announce tax cuts for the rich that, it was claimed, were unfunded. Starmer has let his Chancellor announce penal measures on some of the poorest in society to supposedly provide her with funding.
No one knew what Truss was really trying to achieve. No one has any better clue about Starmer.
Trust assured everyone that things would work out for the best in the long run. So, too, does Starmer.
The media worked out very quickly that Truss was not up to the job that she had been given. It has now come to that conclusion about Starmer, and that opinion is going to be very difficult for him to shake off.
And, the claim is now being made that the City might not want to fund Starmer (however meaningless that is), and the same was true of Truss.
Truss lasted just seven weeks because she was so clearly not up to the job. She was also without Parliamentary support for what she was doing.
Having won a general election, it is hard to claim that Starmer lacks that support as yet, but the fact that he has already lost at least eight of his MPs (seven by their having had the whip removed and an eighth by resignation) does not suggest that he is enjoying a wave of popularity. The fact that his own party voted against Rachael Reeves' first announced policy measure does also not help any suggestion to the contrary.
There are, of course, differences. Everyone was baffled that the Tories might think that Liz Truss was competent. In contrast, Starmer succeeded in projecting the idea that he was possessed of that quality. That puts him in a stronger position, but that might only explain why he has already lasted nearly three months and not just seven weeks.
It is, of course, possible that Starmer might recover from the mess that he is in, that is entirely of his own creation. Alternatively, it might all come down to his Chancellor's first budget. That was also true for Truss. Kwarteng's was a disaster, and she was gone soon thereafter. If Reeves fails to deliver a budget that wins popular support, Starmer might not make Christmas. That would represent a political failure of epic proportion.
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!
Reeves has already told us that her first budget will not be about winning popular support.
For her, it will be about doing the right thing and she knows that some interest groups won’t like it. The point I’m making is that Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves are going to be around a long time because they are not going to lose popular support that they did not intend to have.
You entirely miss the point: they cannot govern without their party, as Johnson found.
Yes – but it did take about three years for Tories to get rid of Johnson (it is also true that Johnson enjoyed high personality ratings and Tories didn’t poll that poorly until the party business blew into his face). The only election Truss won was among the party members, so it was easier to get rid of her (and it’s always easier to do it the second time). Labour is also historically not as brutal with serving leaders as Tories are. I can’t see them getting rid of Starmer (no matter how incompetent and lost he is) in a matter of months. We’ll have to wait at least for a couple of years of extremely poor polling, atrocious result at local elections in England (Labour getting under 15 per cent or maybe even 10 is completely conceivable) and SNP winning the Holyrood election. Then I think the chances are Labour might think about replacing Starmer.
Peter D said: “It’s always easier to do it the second time”.
Although they weren’t dealing with Prime Ministers, but LOTOs, Labour have done a fair bit of defenestration of leaders recently, with MPs taking the lead, firstly in making sure Corbyn lost the 2017 & 2019 elections (without their smear campaign he could have had a majority in 2017, even with it he got a higher vote share & more actual votes than Starmer, with a fully costed and popular set of clear policies. So, having trained an army of saboteurs, Starmer mustn’t be too surprised if he, himself gets sabotaged when dissatisfaction sets in (which it patently has).
That’s what happens, if, like Johnson did, and Starmer has done, you make a bid for power, without having a clue what you intend to do with it. “Status quo” doesn’t work in a crisis, as Starmer/Reeves/BoE are discovering.
Starmer/Reeves/BoE are at the helm of the Titanic, navigating with monetarist charts, that don’t even have icebergs marked on them.
…. an intriguing thought but highly unlikely to happen soon.
More likely, he will throw his Chancellor under the bus first but, err, Liz Truss did that and it still only bought her a few days!!
Precisely. He will last longer, but to 2029? I didn’t see it. I think it will be much sooner.
Sadly, I don’t think there are any local elections in 2025.
Candy Hodgson: “sadly, I don’t think there are any local elections in 2025”
There are, although the seats and councils are mostly for the Tories to lose, Labour is not v exposed next May.
Looks more like fertile ground for LibDems or Greens. I get to vote for my Metro Mayor (the retiring one, Labour’s Dan Norris, & his famous dog has been useless – he’s now a Labour MP- Dan, not the dog).
https://electionmaps.uk/le2025
We are going to have to learn about co-belligerency if we hope to get anywhere in this struggle.
Who is our main most powerful opponent?
What is the main thing we need to change?
Who else is trying to deal with that opponent?
What are our own principles, and where do we draw our own “red lines” without retreating into impotent puritanical factionalism?
Work with them even though we don’t agree with them on everything.
At the moment I feel my main opponent is the “we can’t afford it” argument and the forces at work in our society to promote it, and perpetuate it. That is what governs who I would be prepared to work alongside in co-belligerency. But it doesn’t mean I trust them!
I’m also mindful that a very powerful force at work in our politics and society today is divisiveness and mutual hostility and suspicion, and the scapegoating of “the other”. In other words, finding people to blame for our problems (immigrants, the boats, the EU, Muslims, benefits claimants, centrist dads, any MP who isn’t left wing enough for us), other than the REAL cause of the problem. It’s a “divide and rule” argument, and we fall for it regularly especially on the left.
There are a lot of forces working against Starmer/Reeves now, and I don’t understand exactly what is going on, so soon after the election. But I don’t see them as my MAIN opponent (although I have never trusted either of them, having watched Starmer’s rise to power and seen his dishonesty and deceit).
My main opponent is “we can’t afford it” economics.
I’ll (cautiously) ally with those who also see that as their opponent.
So on that basis, and with those caveats, I welcome Duffield’s resignation letter, because, despite her own flaws and missteps, what she says in that letter about the PM and Chancellor, is TRUE.
I like your thinking here and the way you analyse the situation
A reasonable response. If you don’t broadly think like that, you will end with nothing but opponents.
And if he goes, who will take his place? I see no-one of sufficient stature, gravitas, intelligence, or courage, to be the Prime Minister we need.
Me neither
Well, we already know that the Prince of Darkness, representing corporate Blairism has a predilection for the wee lad.
I cannot see Streeting making the grade at Health or being capable of holding any section of the PLP or Labour Party membership in thrall sufficient to support an election as leader, but pigs might fly.
It is quite an early hour of the morning that I write this on a Monday morning 30.09.24 and I am usually a bit dark in this hour myself but there are two things I thing we need to be aware of .
1. You are essentially dealing with extremists who do not know how to compromise and why should they? The system under scrutiny here has rewarded them well (more than ‘well’) and – despite a constant derogatory references to their intelligence here that I find puzzling and a form of under-estimation – they are intelligent enough to know what works for them, and to use their intelligence to defend and maintain it. Tell me now, do you think that we fully understand our ‘opponent’?
2. It is rather touching that some of us here appear to believe in ‘rationality’? Do you think that people who go to such lengths to protect – what? – their money – are ‘rational’? That they have ‘rational’ fears and a ‘rational argument’?
I sometimes wonder if some of us know exactly who we are dealing with in this new Dark Age of ours, where the religion of those who oppress us is simply ‘Money’. And note the word ‘religion’. It is intended.
If you want to pin your hopes on rationality and it keeps you going, then by all means do so.
Mine are pinned elsewhere and I would encourage you to likewise diversify your emotional investment, ‘eggs in one basket’ and all that.
Speaking of ‘rationality’ – it seems in short supply – so what has been happening in Yemen?
Lammy Rayner or Yvette Cooper the thought of these 3 becoming PM is terrifying
None of those three stand a chance so worry ye not!
Truss and Reeves both studied PPE at Oxford, so don’t expect any difference in their budgets. One way or another it’s the sponsors that get what they want. Follow the money.
What exactly is it they teach in the economics part of PPE?
PPE core elements –
Politics – markets good, government bad; listen to sponsors, lie to voters
Philosophy – markets good, government bad; listen to sponsors, lie to voters
Economics – markets good, government bad; listen to sponsors, lie to voters
Be funny if it wasnt so close to the truth
Among the well – recognised shortcomings Rosie Duffield raised – one was his unwillinglness to engage with his own MPs
Its difficult to see how Starmer will ever open up and be prepared to discuss with a wider range of economists / politicians outside his narrow faction.
Its factionalism that got him the leadership and won him the election – but he doesnt seem to grasp that its now about getting a proper understanding of how the economy works – and appreciating the depth of the hole we are in – (post 1945 and all that), and contemplating the radical action needed.
He seems to have City ‘advisers’ the Blair Insitute people crawling all over in and around his government – and keeping the Daily Mail onside is a key priority for Starmer (no EU movement for young people).
You and many of your commenters have predicted a crisis followoing the election – it seems to be happening sooner than expected. Will he execute the necessary U-turn? Seems unlikely. Will his MP’s vote a U-turn and/or force him to resign? Again seems unlikely.
The gerrymandered MP selection process seems to have ensured there will be no one of standing to replace him.
What a mess.
Agreed
Starmer and Reeves both appear to still be campaigning, in effect. They’re like dogs who’ve actually caught the car after chasing it for years only to find they have no idea of what to do with it.
I’ve ready given Starmer the new nickname of Dud Christmas Cracker.
Richard knows I said quite a while ago that Starmer wouldn’t see his 1st anniversary.
Does anybody know the point of the current Labour Party other than to fawn for crumbs at the table of the rich? The party’s a disgrace!
I don’t see how you think Keir and Rachel will be removed?
Labour has a huge majority, the few critical MPs have been suspended, and the others won’t rock the boat.
Why won’t they rock the boat?
They will start rocking the boat as soon as they are afraid they might go down with it.
@Mary Fletcher
You really think the MP’s signify in this matter.
Starmer was put in power by vested interests, is “governing” in those interests, who will decide whether or not he survives.
If he is seem as too much of a lemon (he’s already sunk below Sunak in credibility) those interests will replace him.
Ironically, Starmer’s Faux-Labour Party has even taken on the old Tory Party method of choosing their Leader, who will just “emerge” from an entirely untransparent process, as did Lord Home Sir Alec Douglas-Hume when Macmillan fell ill in 1963.
After that experience, the Tories went for elections, which produced Lettuce Truss, and even Sunak, and is set to producea further disaste.
Faux-Labour will definitely revert to MP’s only to VOTE for their next Leader but one, knowing what he wider membership would vote in a Corbynite clone = in their opinion, the Truss catastrophe.
But their next Leader will “emerge”, as used to happen with the Tories.
As an addendum to my point about a Leader “emerging”, the obvious way for this to happen is for Starmer to go – resign – and leave his elected Deputy, Angela Rayner, as the new Leader, with all the authority of having been elected in her own right, and not just having been a mere runner-up in a Leadership vote.
There’s no way, for fear of a Corbyn-clone being elected by the membership, that Likud-Labour will run the risk of a membership-led Leadership election, until they’ve effectively disenfranchised the membership (as they have already taken away most of their membership democracy), so they’ll run with this, and Labour will have its own first female PM.
What a difference from my first choice for a Labour female PM – Barbara Castle. That would have been a REAL PM heading a REAL Labour Party and Government.
Starmer, Reeves and Streeting are neoliberals. Their party has received their down payment in funding which dictates no change of direction. The plan is, as across the pond, the establishment of two parties fully committed to runaway free market economics. Labour is dead. First mission accomplished.
Surely a National Day of Mourning needs to be called in regard to the Labour Party!
I’m sure I’m not the only person in this benighted country to feel complete and utter despair at what is happening here, in Gaza, Lebanon, now in Austria ( rightwing government). The worse thing is the feeling of complete helplessness and genuine fear for the future. We have 6 beautiful grandchildren and I am so fearful for their future but what the f*** can I do about it.
Speak out
I have for sometime wanted some version of proportional representation , but now I’m terrified Reform and the right wing powers will overwhelm any left leaning parties
Then address the risk head on – because it will win more easily with FPTP
The Social Democratic Party is worth a look I joined them 7 Years ago because of my despair at the labcon uni party
They are UKIP aligned
The last thing they are is social democratic