Keir Starmer really does not understand what he is doing. It must be that statements issued by his own team informed these comments in the FT this morning concerning an extended Cabinet meeting held yesterday afternoon and evening:
Sir Keir Starmer has launched another attempt to reboot his ailing UK government at a six-hour cabinet meeting, held against a bleak economic backdrop and crumbling public support.
The prime minister admitted his administration had been too slow, too cautious and risked being left behind by world events, telling ministers at a special meeting on Friday in Lancaster House: “We can either be the disrupters or the disrupted.”
The FT added:
At the end of a week which saw the Bank of England halve its growth forecasts for 2025 and the populist Reform UK party overtake Labour in a YouGov poll, Starmer's allies said he had made “a passionate call to increase the pace of change”.
There are four things he very obviously does not get.
The first is that however hard he calls for it, growth is not going to happen in a world as chaotic as that we are now living in. When every signal being sent out into the world from Trump says that chaos is imminent, the world is going to be in precautionary mode. People and companies are not going to spend. They are not going to invest. They are going to save. That is what always happens when people are afraid, and they are rightly afraid right now. Telling people to do otherwise is going to have no impact. They are not going to listen to him. His whole plan is utterly hopeless in a world where growth is not on the cards.
Secondly, it really is time he gave up on growth anyway, for two reasons. One is that most people know that the benefits of growth only go to the wealthy. They are not interested in any more of that happening. And, unless he says what he wants to grow and why, then they will be alienated because, by itself, the word has become meaningless. He could talk about growth in the one thing he can control, which is the state sector, and people might listen. But, since he will not talk about, or even countenance that, any discussion of growth is now a political turn-off.
Thirdly, it should have dawned on him by now that the word 'change' is also seen as meaningless unless explained. Unless the change from 'something' to something else' is explained, with reasons for the change being given and potential benefits being laid out for all to appraise, then people are now as alienated by this word as they are by growth. People might be desperate for radical change in our political system so that it might function for them, but when Starmer has turned his back on everything from proportional representation onwards that might really deliver change, they do not trust him with the word.
And, fourthly, for a man who makes the average conveyancing lawyer in a small market town look exciting, the claim to be a disrupter is ludicrous. That is most especially so when nothing Labour is offering appears to change anything that really matters in any of the biggest areas of concern, from healthcare to education and onwards. In fact, all labour seems to be doing is maintaining the status quo.
Starmer can say these words. No one will, however, believe a word he says. Only actions matter now, and he does not believe in the state, reform of the state, or in what a state liberated by proper macroeconomic thinking can do. Unless he changes - and that seems unlikely - those at yesterday's meeting must realise that they are doomed to failure. It's just going to be torture whilst the path to Starmer's painful demise is rolled out.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
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!
Ed Miliband sums up the uselessness of this government scared of their own shadow or rather the rich calling the shots:-
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ed-miliband-heathrow-third-runway-opposition-b2693964.html
All this Starmer talk of change reminds me of Obama and his ‘hope and change’ platform he won on in 2008. Except with him, nothing changed and there was no hope left at the end of his 8 years, and ultimately he paved the way for Trump. Starmer is following exactly the same path, even to the point of bailing out banks and privatised industries if it comes to that, rather than helping Labour’s natural constituents and voters. They now do have somewhere to go, seduction by the snakeoil salesman par excellence, Farage. All so desperately predictable.
Maybe he should try the “joy” strategy. It worked so well for Harris.
The clues were certainly there way back in the Obama period most of the American people were there for the plucking, willing to vote for snake oil salesmen, and now they have an emboldened Trump to screw up their country. No different here, licenced banks blowing a house price bubble, Brexit, and a Bank of England out of control. Thinking takes effort and a lot of voters don’t want to put that effort in. Enter Nigel Farage with his mindless platitudes!
There is a difference with Obama. he lost the first mid terms and, as I recall, was never able to control both houses of Congress. And he faced the aftermath of financial crisis.
Obama had to sort out the GFC which involved the federal government having to spend a lot of money I can’t believe Bernanke didn’t tell Obama that money was simply marked up with keystrokes on a computer but Obama persisted in carrying on saying the government had no money of it’s own:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiCs_YHlKSI
@ Schofield
I had that clip of Bernanke saved for many years.
But realising the implications of MMT takes time. It did for Stephanie Kelton.
In the real world of US politics I don’t think even the President could make a major shift by himself. Congress was full of people indoctrinated by neo-liberalism
US politicians don’t seem to explain in depth these days. They talk in the simplest terms.
So do ours
Thank you and well said, John.
In the November 2009 US state elections, Obama received what he called a “shellacking”. That led to Sarah Palin asking, “How’s that hopey changey stuff working out for ya.” She was right.
John S Warren has often written about Obama saved Wall Street and betrayed Main Street.
One can say the same about the Hollande and even Macron presidencies and Scholz coalition. All so predictable.
In fairness to scholtz (why?) I was in Berlin a year or so ago – elec market reform – and the woman who was organising it said that if you thought lobbying in Brussels was bad – you ain’t seen nothing compared to Berlin. One could argue that most German federal govs are fake – they don’t represent German people, they are there to take orders from German corporations. Witness the +/- 30 year saga with low emission & elec vehicles – The German OEMs told the German gov (regardless of party) what the positon was – gov salutes and follows the corporate line. Consequence: AfD.
Relevance to the UK? Reeves with her(?) daft fiscal rules painted her&Starmer into a corner – were the rules a consequence of listening to “the markets”? or was it more a case of taking their orders from “the market”? – perhaps in the form of Bailey(?) Or maybe we are in Stockhausen Syndrome territory? Love your captor?
Interesting & very puzzling times. one thing for sure: the clique behind the witless/brainless McSweeney has been exposed for what it is: a bunch of over grown right whinge students playing politics & unfit to run a Scout Group.
By planning for a significant increase in air traffic … in carbon dioxide emissions … the Prime Minster has shown that he does not much care about accelerating climate change.
A few minutes after you published the above, Fiona Harvey, the Guardian’s Environment editor, wrote “ ‘Backsliding’: most countries to miss vital climate deadline as Cop30 nears. Developing countries urge biggest polluters to act as Trump’s return to the White House heightens geopolitical turmoil.” https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/08/countries-miss-climate-deadline-cop30-trump-pollution
Yesterday’s BBC transmission from the Lords revealed a Minister spouting jibberish based on pretended ignorance of environmental realities. His colleagues listened politely. Most will have grandchildren as well as children. Do our Lords really care less about their families and more about money and forlone hopes for continued power of the wealthy?
To the last, the only obvious answer is yes, that is the case.
Is Starmer so narcissistic that he believes him simply being PM means that all else falls into place, that he only has to say the words and the rest just happens? If a govt wants growth, and then expects that the job of achieving that belongs to everyone but the govt, then the govt is unnecessary, since they’re providing nothing; and all they really can provide is money (and they can only do that because they can create it out of nowhere), their position makes no requirement that they have relevant knowledge, skill, experience, or expertise, unless you count being a slogan repeating robot – “more money in people’s pockets” being the 70s toe-curling anachronism du jour. Starmer has systematically destroyed his own credibility because he’s failed to recognise that people compare what others say with their actions to make judgments about who they’re dealing with. By that measure he’s duplicitous, untrustworthy, desperate and floundering. Relaunch after relaunch suggests a damning self-assessment (the core of the narcissist) coupled to a flailing grasp at whatever clump of grass might stop him tipping off a cliff. Listicle after listicle suggest not so much someone bursting with ideas as someone bereft and directionless, who is simply fishing for something that might bite. Overall, LINO may not believe they preside over a fiat currency, but they have the hubris to believe in the fiat power of their own words (the myth of their landslide victory), and the very fact that they are in power. It just seems to stump them that their bidding simply isn’t done, that people aren’t rushing out to spend all the money they don’t have to help Reeves on her fools errand. They don’t seem to get that public services can be funded directly, that they don’t have to be funded by taxing the sales of mobile phone covers or bars of chocolate – funding public services doesn’t depend upon any other activity, this view simply holds public services to ransom. They are truly clueless, which is staggering, since many millions outside of Westminster seem to know what would help – reduce inequality, provide affordable homes, nationalise natural monopolies, reinstate the NHS, provide good, free education for all, care for people, reintroduce good levels of welfare, strengthen unions, increase pensions, tax the rich, make tax progressive, close tax avoidance loopholes and so on and on.
It’s writ large in the grubby chamber of the “Lords”, but it’s a predicament for many, people need money and so they end up doing destructive work, counter to their own interests and those of their families’, their friends and all life on earth, ultimately. We need to upend market-fundamentalist systems and move to a system of direct funding of restorative and genuinely caring and supportive work, primarily services, and away from the idea that the public sector depends upon the private, which it doesn’t, in fact the converse is true. I’m not sure we’ll get there.
[…] By Richard Murphy, part-time Professor of Accounting Practice at Sheffield University Management School, director of the Corporate Accountability Network, member of Finance for the Future LLP, and director of Tax Research LLP. Originally published at Fund the Future […]
Starmer’s greatest achievement seems to be to have effectively purged his whole party of any backbone or initiative.
I’m sure theren are a lot of Labour MPs who can see that their tenure is going to be one term. They should be ungovernable in this state. We should be heading about unrest and challenges.
Yet they follow him like compliant sheep.
Thanks for reproducing this.
I thought that the purpose of Starmer’s agenda for change would disrupt 14 years of insane and cruel Tory rule and put the country on a better footing. Evidently not.
All I see is the ‘political-avatarism’ that I have spoken of previously. Starmer is speaking on behalf of his sponsors who have provided clothes, glasses, things for him and his Missus to do in his spare time and campaign and administration funds for his party.
I thought that the Labour party came into being because it dared to stick its head above the parapet on behalf of ordinary people dominated by capital.
This is not a compromise with capital which is what New Labour seemed to try and do; this is out an out capitulation.
It’s also very reckless.
I am reminded of Groucho Marx’s famous line: “Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them… well, I have others.”
The real problem is they don’t understand that they are in charge – the concept of “leadership” has passed them by!
They failed to create policies after 2019 (the 2017 policies were incredibly popular but they dropped almost all of those), they rely on the advice of those who haven’t a clue (too young, lacking in real world experience, professional “advisors”) and “those who know” (those whose pockets and self-interest is best served by doing nothing). They also fail to give you a ring!
I like your comment about Starmer being less exciting that a small town conveyancing lawyer – the reference used to be “more boring that an accountant” but, of course, we can’t say that!
Headless chickens spring to mind.
I am increasingly thinking that there is a high possibility of both Starmer and Reeves (as they stand and fall together) will be gone by the end of the year.
However, if Starmer wants to improve things internally, a good start would be to dismiss Morgan McSweeney.
@ Duncan Minnie’s,
I agree about the likely fate/shelf life of Starmer and Reeves. Indeed, I thought he might have been gone already, and dubbed him “the dud Christmas Cracker” last year.
A bit previous, I have to admit, but I think I just got which Christmas wrong, because to have Starmer and Reeves talk about being “the adults in the room” is so painfully awry, as to nearly cause apoplexy.
The painful truth is that we have ended up with the most clueless, incompetent, downright toxic Government in living memory (and probably earlier).
As I’ve posted before, Starmer’s outfit/gang/rabble is made up of Keystone Kops 4th-raters from top to bottom, who seem to be comfortably outdoing all the administrations from 2010 (possibly earlier) in incompetence and the delivery of the opposite of what is needed – more hidebound austerity based on “magic fiscal rules”, when investment into the economy is what is not only desired, but desperately needed.
I despair.
Each day brings another step on the road to ruin and Labour’s self imolation.
The last two being fantasy nuclear stations under every tennis court – and the ‘mickey taking’ sickness benefit cheats from Liz Kendall,
They are so far down in the deep mine of their own making – all based on their religious ideological belief that ‘growth’ is the answer and ‘growth’ only comes from global corporates being attracted by dismantling regulation and taxation for those corporations and their owners .
The only thing McSweeney, Starmer, McFadden and the gang have been good at is the single minded sucking up to dark money and ruthless purging of thousands of members and social democrat MP’s from Labour weaponising anti semitism etc
In other words – a factional take over of the party – a mini version of what Trump is doing to the US. They make Blair look almost subtle and broad minded – in that he used to actually talk to Denis Skinner and co.
There seems to be no way out – cant seem a full scale rebellion of back benchers – and can’t see Starmer and Reeves asking themselves where there might be other ways of running the economy so that it benefits the mass of the peoople – such as invesmtent in health and care – which may surprisingly – actually boost the economy.
Would they ask whetherafter all, Keynes might have been right – ‘we can afford’? – Not on your life.
Difficult to disagree with richard’s last sentences-
“Unless he changes – and that seems unlikely – those at yesterday’s meeting must realise that they are doomed to failure. It’s just going to be torture whilst the path to Starmer’s painful demise is rolled out. “
Is there room for one of these small scale nuclear reactors on the Drax site?? If so the Govt should build one there. No ifs no buts no planning – most of the infrastructure is already there. Just borrow the money and do it. A single central govt action ( pretend there is a war). Propose it, do it, and take the praise or the blame. Who else is in a position to take the risk?
Drax needs to shut
But why want nuclear waste anywhere?
To late to help with climate change, renewables cheaper and scaling, we need maximum reductions now, not in 20 years time. Nuclear is required to run flat out to pay off the capital cost, so will force cheaper renewables off the grid, see the myth of baseload see https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2013/04/baseload-power-is-a-myth–even-intermittent-renewables-will-work
SMRs of PWR type (pressurised water reactor) as stated yesterday have all the balance of plant cost ie. steam turbine plant without any scaling cost advantage, see https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2025/02/06/why-shouldnt-we-be-disillusioned-with-our-politicians/#comment-1005621 Other designs eg thorium will need entirely new fuel supply chaines.
NESO (National Energy System Operator) is putting in place the structure for renewables. The last 5 % will be difficult but we can run a little stored renewable fuel even methane with some CO2 removal. Currently some overbuild of renewables is the cheapest option, see Prof Mark Barrett, UCL grid optimisations.
Do we really want a terrorist/ war target in industrial parks close to homes?
I did this piece on the fallacy of SMRs (Small Modular Reactors): https://dearscotland.substack.com/p/nuclear-power-in-scotland-not-economic
Thanks
If Starmer wanted to look like a content free puppet of the financial elite he’s doing a great job. If he wanted to effect change and create economic growth all he needs to do is tell Rachael to fund more posts in care and establish all such at a decent hourly rate. Care Scotland were advocating £16ph some years ago. That would work.
I’m just a newly retired truck driver, but apart from Trump’s election adding to their woes, the slow demise of LINO has been very predictable to intelligent peasants like me since Starmer & Reeves tricked voters into putting them in government with their massive majority last July. Immediately alienating voters soon afterwards by cutting the WFA and pre-warning of tax rises soon stopped most non-essential spending and threatened pay and jobs.
The April tax and NICS rises haven’t even fed through yet but everyone is gloomy and worried about more price rises soon.
Many of us peasants aren’t as stupid as Starmer & Reeves obviously think we are.
They are doomed and so will we all be if they don’t go fairly soon.
@Chris Beaver
You rightly say “They are doomed and so will we all be if they don’t go fairly soon.”
But there are two “theys” – the first is Starmer and Reeves, but the second is not just the whole Starmer horror show, but the whole intellectual (if such an adjective can be applied to it!) neoliberal weltanschaung .
This has brought us, and up to 90% (maybe more) of the world’s population such misery and suffering in the 45 years since the Thatcher/Reagan dyarchy birthed into the global polity the virus of Neoliberalism and its dishonest “trickle down” nonsense (which is, of course, actually “cascade up”, if wealth from the 99% to the 1%).
In a word, locally, here in the UK, we need another GE, and a Government willing to take REAL action – as Governments can – in 180° the opposite direction to that of Starmer and his bunch of incompetent Neoliberal ideologues.
Not going to happen, alas, but it’s what is needed. Currently we’re headed towards a neo-Fascist dystopia, owing to Starmer’s authoritarianism and surrender to the corporate State (just consider the horrors of Special Enterprise Zones and Charter Cities = the new serfdom for 99% of us, and rile by corporate barons – no sign of resistance from Starmer and his gang!)
The Left, or better still, all truly Progressive elements in society – they’re there in every Party and grassroots movement – must come together to enable what Richard has dubbed “the Courageous State” to come fully into being and thrive.
If only!
McSweeney must be lured out into the open. He worked for Mandelson, who said he would work night and day to ensure Jeremy Corbyn never became Prime Minister. McSweeney (prompted or unprompted) chose Starmer as a leadership candidate, and only then approached him to set up a secret group which would plan the campaign. That group was set up six months BEFORE the 2019 General Election. McSweeney’s visceral hatred of the “Left” produced his plan: discredit and expel Corbyn; purge the Labour Party of anyone linked to Corbyn; change the rules so no one from the Left could ever become Leader; hug the Union Flag; sing the National Anthem.
Unfortunately for Starmer, he publicly signed 10 pledges to stand by Corbyn’s Manifesto; then after being elected, reneged on them all. He expelled thousands and thousands of Party members even vaguely on the Left using mostly trumped up charges of antisemitism or supporting a group proscribed by the Party. Again unfortunately for Starmer, those groups were not actually proscribed at the time people “liked” a post of theirs on Twitter. Starmer applied the expulsions retrospectively. All these actions are, of course, fully available in videos of Starmer regularly reproduced on social media. I’m uncertain as to how anyone – even Starmer – can be unaware of, or ignore, the visible evidence of his previous public statements.
European TV channels have been running programmes entitled “Starmer – the grey man” and “Starmer – Keep quiet and carry on regardless”.
I imagine Starmer is too dense emotionally to recognise his massive error in sacking Sue Gray, a seasoned Civil Servant with enormous experience of Whitehall. To replace her with McSweeney, an untested outsider whose only political experience has been in campaigning, may well be his undoing. It’s horribly obvious that no one knows what they are doing.
Incidentally, McSweeney’s wife, first elected in July 2024, is now Rachel Reeves’ PPS.
Also incidentally, Starmer promised Change. He never said it would be for the better.