Keir Starmer is the UK's prime minister without ever understanding what the role demands, or that he has none of the required skills to undertake the task.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
Keir Starmer is a politician who has never understood. Let me explain what I mean.
I've been reading the book, 'Get In' by the Sunday Times journalists, Patrick Maguire and Gabriel Pogrund, and it's about the whole process by which Keir Starmer first of all became leader of the Labour Party and then secured the role of Prime Minister.
But what it makes clear is that Keir Stamer has never understood a number of key things about the job that he now does, and this is summarised for me most effectively in the quote on page 132 of that book. It's recorded that he said at about the time that he was sacking Jeremy Corbyn from the Labour Party, that:
I don't have any ideology at all. There's no such thing as Starmerism and there never will be. I will make decisions one after the other.
That is what Starmer said he thought his role as Prime Minister was.
He effectively said he's not a politician. After all, a politician without an ideology is not a politician at all. But worse than that, that means he's not a strategist. In other words, he hasn't got a high-level vision of what he's trying to achieve. And that's very clear from the comment that he made, because he said he's going to make one decision after another.
That means he isn't even a policymaker, which is the person who's one below the strategist. The policymaker is the person who interprets the strategy for delivery.
He's just a manager and a pretty poor manager at that, because it's quite clear that not only is he not a strategist or a policymaker, he doesn't even understand the need for a strategy or a policy, and therefore, as a manager, he simply reacts to events. There is nothing that he is trying to deliver.
As evidence of a lack of understanding of the role of Prime Minister or the role of leader of a political party, something does not come much more dramatic than that. This is a man who's become the leader of a political party and Prime Minister without having the slightest notion of what either job requires of him.
And as a consequence, he has, and we can see it, no plan, no conviction, no aims. He's just in power, and his only goal is to continue that power. And the only reason why he wants to continue in power is his own self-interest and - and I think this point is quite critical - because he can't imagine anything else but the status quo in which we now operate.
He wants to perpetuate where we are. No politician on Earth should ever want to do that. The only reason for going into politics is to change things. The job of the civil service is to perpetuate things. The job of the politician is to tell the civil servant what needs to change.
Starmer was a civil servant.
He has the mindset of a civil servant.
He has the delivery of a civil servant.
He has, frankly, the style of a not very good civil servant because he doesn't even understand what delivery means.
This is not what we need at this point of time in the history of this country.
We need a politician with vision.
We need a politician who understands what the country needs.
We need a politician who cares.
We need a policy.
We need a politician with a strategy, and we need a politician with a plan.
Keir Starmer has none of those things. He doesn't even understand that he's missing them. And for that reason - the fact that he's a politician who has never understood the role - means that he is quite possibly the most unsuitable person of all the politicians available in this country to lead it at this moment.
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!
All too plausible I feel.
You have a busy weekend ahead of you so all I will say is this.
Starmer did have a strategic purpose though in my view and that it was internal to the party and it was to mop up and deal with Corbynism and assert the Blarite mode. It is this internecine fighting that defines Labour now.
We needed a politics that fights for us, but Labour just fought for itself instead. Having succeeded, it now seems lost because of this and relies on support from those it was meant to oppose.
Shocking.
We needed a politics that fights for us, but Labour just fought for itself instead.
Brilliant summing up Pilgrim
Agreed
I get the impression that Morgan McSweeney was looking for a useful idiot to stand for the leadership and found Starmer.
It seems to me that the only aim of the Labour Party now is to stay in Government, which has always been the objective of the Tories.
‘He effectively said he’s not a politician.’
Keir Starmer is a managerial technocrat and a poor one at that.
Managerial technocrats are great for the civil service which needs as many good ones as they can get.
However, exceptional managerial technocrats, on the whole, have no political skills and as a group are below average leaders.
A technocrat that has been trained in the ‘technology’ of the 1920s and is failing to grasp all of the increases in knowledge and thinking (in economics) that has occurred since then?
Well said. I always thought he was not up to the job before the election and everything since then has proved the point. He is totally unfit for the job and has a cabinet who are also not up to the job. The whole country will suffer because of their incompetence.
Neoliberals will never admit to having an ideology because that would admit the possibility of alternative systems, which is radical and dangerous thinking to people like Starmer.
Good point
Agreed. If you have not already read it Michael J. Sandel’s: Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become Of The Common Good (2021). It has interesting insights into the socially destructive and culturally hollow Winners v Losers narrow framework that a neoliberal ideologically motivated political ruling class imposes on the peoples of the nation states that they believe that they alone deserve to ‘own’.
I’ve just read this Observer article and while the information contained within it may not be new to some, much of this came as a real eye-opener for me (provided that the claims made by Maurice Glasman are true, which I have no reason to doubt) and explains a very great deal about what is going on with the Labour leadership, government policy and the direction of its political travel – even explaining the motivation of Rachel Reeves trip to DC.
I oppose most of what Glasman claims to stand for but the interview is nonetheless a worthwhile use of a few minutes. I’ve provided alink to the article below:
https://observer.co.uk/news/politics/article/labours-trump-card
I have met him.
A truly horrible man who hates the world around him, in my opinion, as is apparent from what he said.
Great article Richard.Many thanks to Chris for reproducing the Observer interview with Glasman.
Why is he a member of the Labour party with such extreme right wing views ?
Saw parts of a recent Newsnight programme focussing on a Trump visit to the UK.
Josh Simons ,new Labour MP chosen by the hierarchy for the Wigan area,in agreement.Destined to go up the greasy pole.
Clever but there’s a selfish ambition as he was once quoted as saying “I’m not going to die on a hill for Labour”
I hoped that the Tories would wither away but sadly,I now hope that the present Labour party suffers the same fate.
Views previously expressed by either Macmillan,One Nation Toryism and the Old Labour of Wilson and factions in between hardly have any representation in modern UK politics.
New parties or alliances are desperately needed.
You have the advantge on me (never having met him & with zero desire to do so).
Some of what he said made sense ref re-industrialisation – it makes sense: strategically, economically and socially for the UK to make stuff – quite why it needs a surge in re-armament to triugger this reflects shamefully on the Uk body politsic of which Glasman is part and what passes for its erm… “thinking”. Did Glasman ever make a detailed case for re-nationalisation? is he even capable of doing so? I am doubtful.
Lapsing into anglo-saxon: he struck me as all piss&wind / weathercock pointing which ever way the political wind blows.
Ref: with whom he associated with: current evemts making for some interesting bedfellows.
– oh & lastly, did you know I’m a Lord as well? – well that’s what P&O calls me (ditto Eurotunnel) 🙂
Starmer may not have a vision, an ideology, a political goal or even a short-term strategy. But someone does.
We may not be able to find the UK version of the USA’s Project 2025, or its predecessors like the “Project for a New American Century”, but someone is pulling Starmer’s strings, and has been since he stood on the street selling The Militant, or called Corbyn his friend, or campaigned in front of “Free Palestine!” posters, signed the BOD 10 Pledges, issued & then reversed his own 10 pledges, joined the Trilateral Commission and took money (covertly, before the leadership election) from Trevor Chinn, then followed Morgan McSweeney meekly into Downing Street, to start the 2029 election campaign, apparently unaware that he had a government to run for 5 years.
He regularly tells us his “dad was a toolmaker”.
He’s correct there, and one of the tools that Starmer senior made, was his son.
Keir Starmer is a tool, not using the word abusively, but literally.
We see all too clearly the destructive scars of the tooling on our country, our society, on all of us as individuals.
What is less clear to me is who is holding the tool, and what are they trying to do with him. But as a tool, he is the ideal candidate – apparently, without a political idea in his head, visionless, no strategy beyond today’s focus group report, ready to be manipulated, chopping, chiselling, sawing, shaving, sanding, till the new oligarchy is built.
In one sense, he is utterly unimportant. He will be discarded when he loses his edge (not that he ever was that politically sharp). Fa***e can continue, we’ll hardly notice the difference.
Meanwhile, WE have to come up with an alternative.
KUTGW! (and have a good weekend)
Thanks
Picking up on your words, RobertJ…
“What is less clear to me is who is holding the tool, and what are they trying to do with him. But as a tool, he is the ideal candidate – apparently, without a political idea in his head, visionless, no strategy beyond today’s focus group report, ready to be manipulated, chopping, chiselling, sawing, shaving, sanding, till the new oligarchy is built.”
…I thought of this, somewhat related, clip from a classic of yesteryear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_A2zjp40hA
Many a true word, eh?
Extremely good still.
The people wielding these tools – these avatar politicians Robert J like Starmer and Reeves (between them now still looking to deregulate the financial sector AGAIN) – are the people who provide Starmer and his crew with clothes, entertainment and reading aids.
Starmer is ‘sponsored’ RobertJ – by those who want a certain type of politics that will leave them alone.
The money, the funding, the favours, the ‘sponsoring’ are all defensive BTW – to defend the status quo that has built up after the Tories, to keep them comfortable.
Oligarchy is addictive and enjoyable – look at the tax reforms Richard has put forward and reflect on just how much they reward wealth whilst at the same time being labelled as ‘tax’ (which is why Richard has put them forward so they actually claw back what is given away).
The tax system is some sort of government funded club card for the rich based on their ‘contribution to society’. Which in actual fact grows smaller the longer politicians like Starmer and Reeves are in power. That is why the disabled, mentally ill and children must pay.
Michael Hudson calls this an ‘elective oligarchy’. It’s not a question of not knowing who Starmer is listening to. It’s obvious, RobertJ.
But the Labour party’s funding will still come in and those at the top will be well rewarded because they will deliver a Labour Party that the capital order requires. It’s been gelded.
That’s why my voting slip went to the shredder. Not voting is a very personal thing and is not right but is right for me. It’s the only acceptable way for me to show my indignation at being involved in a fraudulent activity we call ‘democracy’. My hope would be that the number of non-voters will rise until they cannot be ignored and become a political force of their own, bringing about change. But it is risky. The usual Western arguments about not voting will always be used but are past their sell-by date. I see it as a developing mode of politics. Much better than fascism.
Ian Stevenson – thank you for the compliment.
@PSR
Thank-you for engaging. You are right of course, the sponsors/donors will use whatever tool will protect their interests, and they’ve been doing it flexibly and successfully for a long time.
I’ve witheld my vote only once, when government forced us to have Police & Crime Commissioners, in a power grab to further castrate local government. The public made their lack of interest or support v clear, by staying home in unprecedented numbers during the vote (av turnout 15%). I spoiled my vote saying it was a waste of resources and unwanted.
I’m still turning out to vote (just) but my days of lending my vote “to keep **** out” are over, for good. Politicians have to EARN my vote otherwise its “NONE OF THE ABOVE”.
This year I have a vote for Regional Mayor (WECA). Retiring Mayor, Dan Norris MP (+ dog), currently arrested for sexual offences. Reform candidate Arron Banks. Contest looks like a 5 way split. Last time we voted by a form of PR. But someone decided we should regress to FPTP this time. I don’t remember being asked about that.
I can see circumstances where I would spoil my vote, but none where I would destroy my ballot. But each person has to make their own mind up, and what we have now is NOT democracy.
The last statesman was Macmillan. In my view, there is only one grade lower than administrator as PM: deal maker. Deal makers play off the factions in their own party, per the previous government.
Starmer does have an ideology – it is just in no way socialist nor is it appropriate for what used to be the Labour party (nor indeed for a country which was once proud of its inclusive Welfare State). Starmer’s is borrowed from other countries, to which he owes far more allegiance. He is an Atlanticist and a (self declared) Zionist.
I agree that with regard to the country, KS and the Labour leadership appear to have no ambition other than to maintain the status quo. Hence they now give the strong impression of useless floundering around and not being able to meet the challenges of our time. But maybe in doing so they are fulfilling a larger strategic purpose. Having enthusiastically applied themselves to neutralising the Left in the Labour Party, they ensure that the citizens of this country – desperate for change – fall into the lap of the populist extreme right. It’s *almost as if* that was the plan all along. It’s going swimmingly.
Sir Keir Starmer’s role is to ensure that government tread more lightly on our lives.
He told us this last year.
This year he’ll tell us something completely different.
I wonder if he’s modelling himself on someone in particular.
‘Sir Keir Starmer’s role is to ensure that government tread more lightly on our lives.’
Yes I remember now he did say that… interesting.
A year on the light-footedness he meant was to shrink the state, so it has no feet to tread!
“Tread more lightly on our lives”…
For the first time in my (>70yrs) life I am scared of the government. Their “light tread” leaves jackboot footprints on almost every area of my life nowadays.
Agreed
Because they are telling us that in reality, they will be treading on the rich lightly which means treading heavily on everyone else.
So true, has anyone noticed his facial expression is often haplessness – as if agency toward a goal of common good is just not possible.
Kid Starver and his acolytes are enablers and beneficiaries – put there to continue the neoliberal project, to fleece and mind control us.
Make us believe there is no alternative and there is no ideology, it’s just one reality; and of course there to enrich themselves and their backers – just like Blair, Johnson, Osborne, Sunak and the rest of the Tufton Street Neoliberal Mob have done for decades.
Been catching up this morning – Relocated to France for 8 weeks. This presentation sort of underpins my thoughts having read up the recent articles in this blog.
A book on caring economics would be a good way of tying up all of the excellent presentations available on YouTube and might appeal to a different audience, But I have to be honest it doesn’t feel like the best use of your time in the present circumstances. I’ll try to explain my thoughts.
Todays presentation highlights in no uncertain terms that the Political Party most likely to bring about the economic and social changes you are looking for is being run by a man with no plan or vision other than to continue with the neoliberal policies of Thatcher and deal with problems as they arise by squeezing those who have the least to offer.
If they are lucky the Labour Party has another 4 years to effect some kind of change in its manner of development, communication and implementation of policy that will give it a chance of electoral success going forward. In my view the current national and international situation gives our government a unique opportunity to develop policies and show a leadership that the UK, Europe, and to be frank anyone trying to survive the “American Implosion”, would do well to adopt.
In my view this is a matter of some urgency as a failure to do so will also fail to halt the ever-shortening cycle where events in America which we frown upon arrive on the shores of the UK at some later date. If Labour continue to fail Farage and his self-interested team of financiers will almost certainly deliver some form of Trumpism here.
So a book would be nice, but a campaign to wake up the Labour Back – Benches to the threats and opportunities that face them should in my view be a priority. I know it’s going to take more my unanswered Email to my newbie Labour MP. Is it time to launch a petition on the Gov.UK website? Your YouTube following would require them to consider a debate in the house. If some of the other followings on YouTube could be mobilised then it would not be difficult to raise a petition with a few million signatures.
Should ideas of how to mobilise those that recognise the need for change and wake up the Labour back benches not be the priority for today??
Thanks
But books do gave a reach still in a way nothing else does
Look at how Gary Stevenson has grown by having one out
I’m sure I cannot be alone in wondering if Gary’s book has been more successful in allowing him to monetise his YouTube following than it has been in creating any kind of movement for change.
I’ve just listened to Yanis on Politics Joe accurately predict 12months ago what a Starmer government would look like, while at the same time plugging his “Eye of the Storm” documentary series for €18.99.
There is a stunning lack of clarity in how much profit will come from these publications, how that money will be used, and who will benefit. It’s a bit like not really caring how much money goes to Geoff Bezos when the stuff you really want is cheaper on Amazon and you can have it delivered free tomorrow.
So whereas I’m sold on the cause of overthrowing neoliberalism the lack of a co-ordinated effort to achieve this gives me cause for concern. Particularly when the “Apostles” of this cause appear to be working hard in isolation to monetise the frustration of the congregation when they should be getting their hands dirty and organising a revolution.
Thinkers are not the organisers of revolutions.
That is not our role.
If we could organise revolutions we would not be thinkers. The skills are very different.
And I suspect I would sign a commercial deal on a book. I might also employ a research assistant to work with me. Is any if that wrong?
I do not follow your logic.
I have signed and followed the progress of several petitions since the website came into being. Not one has made the slightest iota of difference.
I suggest that after (what will be) the disastrous local election results next week we all start bombarding our own Labour MPs with complaints about how completely useless this government has shown itself to be, and recommeding remedial action, starting with the 2 child cap and the proposed benefit cuts.
Keir Starmer occupies power, but refuses to wield it — a manager in an age that demands a leader.
If only there was a world for “preventing things from change” and a political party that supposedly has that as an ideology.
He would be right at home there.
It’s the Labour party’s fault there used to be democratic policy making mechanisms within the party now there is nothing to speak of like that . They deserve a good hiding in the next ballot whatever form that comes in . Their only hope to improve is if the the back benchers who could be shitting them selves start to flex their muscles and tell the government what to do there are some signs of this but I for one will not be betting on stormer and co getting strong armed by the plp as they’re yellow
Now if he were to look at the late Pope Francis for inspiration,….
Starmer always suggested his was a ‘Government of Service’ – cleverly, without suggesting to whom the government actually would be of service.
Turns out the actual servicing is to the ‘debt’.
I said during the GE SKS was a manager type and if foreign circumstances had been more benign he might have got away with being a manager.
However ever international events expose him & the govt machine. Please lets not forget the latter.
Starmer is on a steep learning curve. Let’s hope for the sake of the country he copes and learns the art of leadership.
He won’t
He has been promoted beyond his competence.
That won’t cancel out his fundamental deceitful dishonesty, nor his ruthless authoritarian centralising control freakery, which were central to how he gained power and how he tries to retain it, and which will be his undoing.
He is more dishonest than Johnson ever was.
it didn’t take long for the alarm bells to start ringing for me!
He runs for election, manages to win the election and then what’s the first thing he does – orders his ministers to go out and find areas of growth – “Excuse me!”
why bother running for election if you have no idea how to grow the economy!
Agreed
You nailed it, Richard!
Starmer’s obduracy and stupidity is truly mind-blowing. He will bring about the end of Labour and the duopoly which has served the British people so badly for so long.
What next? A new party will emerge. The time is right.
John
“will” bring about the end of Labour? Why the future tense? He’s already done it.
Prosecutors are all like this. None of them should go near policy or strategy, especially crime reduction or rule of law. For them it is just caseload, one case after another. Like production line workers, never reaching the end, or wondering what’s there.
I like that ‘one case after another’.
Bit harsh on Starmer. All he was doing was acknowledging reality; Blairism was the last throw of the dice for the attempt to attach an attractive ideological structure to Neoliberalism. The failure of “the third way” is the closure of all that. All apologists for the economic system we have are now self -professed bureaucrats. Carney in Canada, all Italian (pre Meloni) , French (post Holland), German, etc. “leaders” are bureaucratic managers who are there to manage and adjust the Neoliberal framework in a way that is consonant with the immediate requirements of the USA. Credit to Starmer for acknowledging this.
Why would you wish to give credit to someone wishing to perpetuate the miserable failure of neoliberalism? Your comment makes no sense at all unless you are putting value on increasing inequality.
And Starmer’s gobsmacking blatant dishonesty and deceitfulness?
His cruel authoritarianism?
One of the problems I have with technocrats is how amoral they seem to be.
That bothers me just as much as the blatant immorality of fascism.
It has real world consequences, in Gaza, and in the lives of those in the UK suffering from austerity.
I just wonder if Starmer has a agreement to ensure that Reform UK becomes the next government.
Well said, Richard.
Many of us have concluded thus sometime ago. One person who I think would benefit from being exposed to your argument is the liberal shock jock James O’Brien, who has so far as I know remains a sycophant of Starmer, particularly with comparison to his predecessor. It always struck me that the principled conviction politician Jeremy Corbyn was the last person who could be described as “an empty vessel“ but the description was perfect for Mr. Starmer.