Carney and Starmer are technocrats - stuck in the middle without ever realising there are clowns to the right of them, and no jokers, or anything else, to their left.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
What ties together Donald Trump, Mark Carney, Keir Starmer and Nigel Farage? The answer is, of course, very obvious. Carney and Starmer are stuck in the middle with Trump and Farage, and this is not a matter of inconsequence.
It actually matters greatly, because what Mark Carney has proved in Canada is that Donald Trump is producing political outcomes outside the USA, which are the exact opposite of what he would wish for.
After all, what we know is that in January, the Conservative Party in Canada was riding high in the polls. The Liberals, who are now headed by Mark Carney, and who have just won the election, were at absolute lowest levels of popularity, and yet Carney won the election.
Now, admittedly, he won the election by, in part, replacing Justin Trudeau, whose time as Prime Minister had reached the end of its natural course. And that party, his party, the Liberal Party, was desperate for a new leader and it's got it in a technocrat, because Mark Carney is no seasoned politician in the sense that he has never stood for political office before.
He has been Governor of the Bank of Canada.
He has been Governor of the Bank of England.
He does, therefore, know his way around the corridors of power in the world. There is not a question about that, and he clearly knows how to negotiate a deal. He is not, and I stress the point, a seasoned politician, and yet he won the Canadian general election.
Well, let's be clear about this. He sort of won the Canadian general election, because the Conservatives, although their leader lost office, did in fact have their highest poll rating for decades. What actually happened was that Canada moved towards its two leading political parties during the course of this election, and the Liberals came out on top, with the smallest parties being squeezed heavily as a consequence, with their support seemingly moving towards the Liberals.
So we have a number of things on display here.
One is the failure of the first-past-the-post electoral system, which is something that Carney and Starmer have in common. They are now both going to be in office despite not winning sufficient support to really prove that they have authority.
In Carney's case, that is in Parliament, where he might well have to work with a minority government. And in Starmer's case , it is with the population as a whole, where despite his landslide majority in Parliament, he actually won very little of the popular vote, and things have got very much worse for him since.
So the centre ground, which both Carney and Starmer would like to claim they represent, is actually really having a tough time.
If Canada was so sure, as Carney says it is, that it wants nothing to do with Trump, the Conservatives should not have polled as well as they did - in fact, in record numbers.
If Starmer was so popular, he would not be so worried about the election results to come in the UK over the next few days, both in Parliamentary by-elections and with regard to local council elections.
The point is that Farage is the equivalent of Trump in the UK, and Starmer is frightened of him.
So the centre ground is holding, but not very well.
The assault from Trump and the assault from the populist right in the UK are real. Both are winning support in countries where ,frankly, it is quite illogical to have voted for parties who are aligned with these interests, and yet it's happening.
So, what do we really learn from Mark Carney?
First of all, technocrats are not actually really ultimately able to engage a population and Carney and Starmer share in common the fact that they came into politics from a technocrat background.
Starmer was, of course, a Director of Public Prosecutions in the UK - a technocrat.
Carney was a banker, a technocrat.
Both lack any obvious clear political convictions that have anything to do with the left at all, although they both lead what are called centre-left parties, although, in my opinion, that's a bit of a joke because I can't identify the left in either of them. And neither of them has got the experience, or charisma, or appeal, or most importantly of all, the political ideology that actually sells the fact that they have conviction to the people of the country that they're trying to get to vote for them.
So, the right-wing ideologues with buckets of charisma, because let's be totally honest about it, Trump and Farage have that in bucket loads - they are winning that race. The technocrats aren't.
It's the lack of ideology that is the real problem in Canada and the UK when we look at the fight between the centre ground, if that's what we wish to call Carney and Starmer, and the far-right, which is what Trump and Farage most obviously are, and this is, as ever, what worries me.
We can't have a politics that is based upon a lack of political conviction. And yet this is where neoliberalism has taken us.
Neoliberalism has destroyed alternative political thinking. It has claimed that it is the end of economic thinking because it has found the ultimate answer to the ultimate question, which is not 42, as the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy would have had it, but is instead that the market knows everything.
And, as a consequence, what politicians who are of a neoliberal persuasion have to say is that we might be running government, but actually the markets are better, and therefore don't trust us very much - trust them, and we will try to shrink the role of government to enhance the role of the market, even though the people who they are trying to convince of the merit of this know full well that this idea has over 45 years now led to economic disaster.
Because that's where we are. We are actually facing economic meltdown, whatever the markets say, whatever our politicians say, people are losing confidence in their future. And if that is not a measure of economic disaster, I do not know what is.
So Starmer and Carney literally might represent the last of the breed.
They are the last neoliberal politicians who might really be able to win power in their countries.
Unless they are replaced by people from the left who actually have a political conviction and who reject market-based solutions, then the right is going to have a free run, however bad it is, however terrible it's suggestions for the majority of people, because there will be no idea to oppose the right from the left and no charismatic person who is driven by conviction who can actually put forward a policy programme that people can believe in.
This is the crisis we're in.
Carney is a short-term solution to a short-term problem in Canada of how to manage Trump. And he might have an answer for the moment. But he hasn't got a long-term solution because this is a man who's never thought that way. If he had, he'd have been a politician a long time ago.
And Starmer is like him. He's a man who never thought about being a politician until he came to the end of a very successful civil service career. He lacks conviction.
Without that conviction, neither of these countries is going anywhere.
We are sitting in limbo.
The right is waiting to take power.
The left needs an answer.
The centre ground has failed.
This is modern politics. Welcome to it and welcome to the process of change because without it, we're in deep trouble.
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!
Listened to Invisible Hands on R4 yesterday, which has traced the history of the ‘free’ market revolution in the UK. Yesterday was the last episode, concerning water privatisation. Which has been a disaster for everyone except the shareholders of course as was pointed out.
The program pointed to Trump in the US as one reaction to the failure and excesses of these ideas.
Here, if ever there was an example of how neoliberalism has failed and should be reversed, this is it. Yet Starmer has ruled this out and instead the public are getting stonking bill increases on top of everything else.
Because although there are people like Clive Lewis in labour, it’s apparent that labour hasn’t a clue who do, or is too scared of the market’s reaction or fiscal rules.
Which just leaves it open to Farage to exploit. The very wealthy city boy who went to Dulwich college posing as the ‘people’s’ saviour.
I agree entirely.
The “markets” which they fear are just glorified betting shops these days, and the sooner everyone wakes up to that fact the better.
They are no longer the source of investment capital which they used to be.
Many years ago with a different employer my service was in dire straights.
A manager described memorably as a sort of Joyce Grenfell had made a complete hash of things and ended up deposed in a Palace Coup.
Something had to be done and Steve, known for dodgy dealings who had been caught ‘in flagrante’ one night in the office was sent in to replace her.
Now he was as as straight as a 3 bob note and knew nothing of what we did, BUT had the ability to inspire the staff and able to quickly realise what needed to be done.
It seems to me that right now most of the world needs a ‘Steve’ who can get stuck in and identify what needs fixing (Two child rule, homelessness, interest rates etc) and ‘inspire the troops’ while its happening.
What we have instead is Starmer
I would argue that Starmer is most definitely not centre, but to the right. His words and behaviour are not those of a centrist, he leans heavily towards Thatcher
Agreed
Richard, I agree with much of the sentiment and logic. However, I would suggest that charisma is not quite the correct adjective to describe Trump and Farage. It is true that grifters / con men tend to exhibit a certain amount of charm / charisma but fundamentally they are both self-interested grifters / con men who are also masters of gaslighting individuals and the public to serve those self interests.
I would also note that neither follows or is committed to a political ideology (unless personal enrichment, aggrandisement and bullying are political ideologies.
Nonetheless, we do need someone who can speak powerfully / charismatically for the left / centre left to promote an alternative economic doctrine to neoliberalism (that has failed to deliver decade after decade (irrespective of the party)).
It’s not necessarily charm that Farage displays, but a salesman’s ability to say what he thinks his subject wants to hear and a willingness to outright lie. Like any salesman, he is talking up the product while trying to hide the small print in the actual deal.
What are we betting that Labour’s only takeaway from the mauling they will take today in local elections is that they aren’t being right-wing enough? They will completely ignore any left-wing gains from parties like the Greens and focus entirely on not being outflanked to the right. Neoliberalism and authoritarianism are a good match.
I’m hoping that some Labour MP’s defect when it becomes clear that Labour won’t be in power after 2029.
One of the biggest problem in this world is the gullability of the masses. Anyone that is loud, makes bold comments, makes promises about what people want to hear, put his/her name and face in the medias day and night… Yes, for many that is Charisma… isn’t it?
It is snake oil salesman clever-smart, no doubt about it, but not charisma.
You are right, Carney does not have that kind of « charisma ». And it is clear that in our world, that kind of « charisma » is now required to be popular, to win elections… because people don’t want boring problem fixing politicians, they want to be entertained.
I disagree. People do want problem-fixing politicians, we just don’t have any. Starmer isn’t charismatic enough to hide the fact that he is perpetuating the status quo, but Farage is. And the masses aren’t as gullible as they are harassed. Most don’t have time to really dig into politics, they are too caught up living busy and difficult lives. If a politician isn’t performing, and someone says that they will, people will vote emotionally, rather than analytically. It’s all that most have time for. Farage is everywhere, mostly talking nonsense, but he is communicating. Stamer is like a video game NPC after you have exhausted the conversation tree.
None of these people is remotely ‘centre’. They are all puppets of the techno-fascists like the frankly terrifying Tony Blair with his ‘Great Reset’ digital dystopia. Which is advancing day by day while we are all distracted by Trump etc. Blair, Carney, Starmer and the rest are all products of the World Economic Forum’s world dictatorship agenda. They don’t believe in democracy, or the rule of law, or national sovereignty – check what they say themselves. They would like nothing better than for these things to destroy themselves. I start to wonder whether Trump was actually installed by them to be knocked down. American sovereignty was always going to be a tough nut to crack.
It’s probably worth noting that Charles III is a great fan of the WEF and even announced the ‘Great Reset’ (the worldwide technofascist coup d’etat) in 2020, saying that Covid provided a great ‘opportunity’.
Why is nobody prepared to come forward and stand up to all this? It looks increasingly like Germany in the 1930s – everyone just looks away and pretends it has nothing to do with them.
I’m trying.
Richard’s analysis of the prospects for Carney ring true to me. We have seen this movie before in the figure of Mario Draghi in Italy. He knew the ropes alright – economically – but he did not have sufficient charisma to carry his parliamentary partners with him when things became tricky on the political management front.
Before going further, I’d say that he actually did have more charisma than either Starmer or Carney but his vast experience as head of the European Central Bank didn’t help him to convince fellow parliamentarians or voters to follow him as a purely political leader in the heat of tricky political battles. He had the strong backing of the President of Italy. The right wing media were behind him. He just couldn’t win arguments in parliament. He managed to resign eventually, probably relieved to escape the mad house that is day to day politics. And who was there waiting in the wings? None other than Giorgia Meloni, from a background of Italy’s Fascist past. I can easily see this happening to Carney. Arguably, Draghi was as a tough a cookie as Carney as a Central Banker. He faced down the clowns in the markets by simply telling them he would do “whatever it takes” to defeat their speculative antics. He won in very short order.
But these others, these fascistic types, seem always to have the stomach for political intrigue and manipulation. The horrendous Berlusconi was almost as comically bad at managing an economy as Trump. But, like Trump, there was no stopping him – regardless of the number of gaffes, scandals and worse that he had to contend with on a daily basis for almost two decades. He was eventually convicted in court but had the Trump-like cunning to pass a law making it illegal to imprison someone of his advanced age. He did finally have to perform a small amount of community service and died a smiling billionaire busily planning his next comeback to the political big time. Before Draghi, other technocrats had a crack at running things in Italy. Intelligent people… Mario Monti was even nicknamed the Professor, if I remember correctly. No go. No charisma. Not really a politician.
Why do I bring all this up? I believe politics in the West has been largely bought by billionaire money. Nobody who is suspected of intending to rock the Establishment boat is going to get a sniff of power – see what happened to Corbyn. He had massive grass roots support but was effectively cancelled by the media. In the UK and the USA it is painfully clear who controls the whole political agenda. Billionaires and their money, using predominantly right wing mass media, will pay “whatever it takes” to get their evil way. They have learned to manage democracy and are quite happy to sell technocrats to the public, saying these will be safe pairs of hands. They’re thinking “safe for our money” I guess.
This blog sees, and regularly discusses, all the ways this situation should be changed. Electoral reform, fiscal reform, party funding, MMT etc. None of this suits those who pay the piper; and Carney, Starmer, Harris plus all the other Centrist contenders for power will have to dance to the billionaires’ tune. Sadly for these people who clearly have more money than sense, Trump has slipped the leash completely and seems about to sink the lot of them.
And the future for Carney and Starmer? If history tells us anything, we’re going to end up with Farage and Poilievre. The problem is, here in the UK, we have no realistic left-wing contender to replace Starmer. And if we did, big money would try to monster them. I’m not sure if this is Limbo, Richard. Feels more like that other place Dante wrote about…
This has been a frustrating thread to follow. Amnesia.
Shall we reflect a bit on what happened in the Labour party over the last decade?
Wee did have such a figure and …