In a world where everything appears to be increasingly incoherent, I spent much of yesterday wondering where anyone might look to find the truth.
Keir Starmer's performance over the Mandelson affair answered no questions because, as veteran MP and Mother of the House, Diane Abbott put it, the real question about this affair was why Starmer asked no questions.
To that, of course, no answer was provided, but I came away with the inescapable feeling that the former highly paid consultant, Sir Olly Robbins, knew what his client, Keir Starmer, wanted, which was the appointment of the former highly paid consultant Lord Peter Mandelson to be ambassador in Washington, where former highly paid consultants are greatly valued, and carefully ensured that he did all that was required to deliver what his client expected, as a former highly paid consultant would do. Keir Starmer, fully understanding how highly paid consultants work, did not seek an explanation as to how he reached his conclusion, knowing that too much information might spoil the apparent value of the advice provided, which is all too often the case when talking to such consultants.
Please forgive my cynicism, but when both Sir Olly Robbins and Lord Mandelson have used their state-provided careers, privileges and honours to their commercial advantage as highly paid consultants, to presume that such a game was not played would be naïve in the extreme.
It would be similarly naïve to think that Donald Trump knows what he is doing. As the current ceasefire with Iran runs out, he has discussed whether or not it might continue and whether or not bombing will resume.
To be candid, I doubt that anyone, including Donald Trump, knows the answer to this one, but the mere possibility that hostilities might resume makes clear how desperate is the situation into which Trump has manoeuvred the USA. Having already used a significant proportion of its available weaponry in this war with Iran, Trump's options are limited, and his ambition is reduced to reopening the Strait of Hormuz, which was both open and free for all trade before this war against Iran began. That Trump's aspiration is now to have what was available before he began this war reveals the level of incoherence behind his strategy.
The incoherence does not end there. One of the most ridiculous stories that I read yesterday was the claim made by cabinet minister Steve Reed MP that people should be wary of voting for the Greens because the Greens had welcomed into membership some of those who have been expelled by the Labour Party for antisemitic behaviour, meaning that the only political party in the UK currently headed by a Jewish person is, apparently, antisemitic in nature, ignoring the fact that many of those expelled by the Labour Party for being antisemitic were, in fact, Jewish.
Their ‘crime' was to question Zionism, which a significant number of Jews think to be an antisemitic cause, most especially as now pursued by the government of Israel. Reed's incoherence was plain for all to see, as was the fact that a man who has so far appeared to fail in two ministerial appointments in a failing Labour government can provide no indication of what sense might be.
So what is all of this about? What is the common thread amongst these disparate elements? There are, I think, three.
The first is that neoliberal politicians have become so accustomed to seeking short-term gain that they are unable to do anything else. The creation of strategy is beyond them.
The second is that those same politicians believe that the ends justify the means, and that it is best to leave questions unasked and unanswered if doing so might expose the means by which they operate.
The third is the most obvious, which is that this strategy has ceased to work. At best, as far as they are concerned, we are left with incoherence. They can live with our confusion. It might in fact be what they desire. At worst, as is becoming increasingly clear, their fear is that we might see through them and be alienated by their actions.
That leaves, on the table, the question of what we do next?
The answer is that we create a politics for people, based upon principles of care, accountability, good governance, justice, transparency and integrity, with stated goals that relate to the improvement in the well-being of the only audience which democratic politics is really meant to serve, which is the population of the jurisdiction which politicians are elected to govern.
Such an approach would be revolutionary because almost everything about it has been forgotten by the politicians currently in power, who believe it is their sole responsibility to serve the commercial interests they think put them in that position.
There is, then, no incoherence after all; all that we are witnessing is a straightforward conflict of interest between the desire of people who would wish that politics serve them, and the desire of politicians who think their obligations lie elsewhere.
There can be no reconciliation between these positions. They are in conflict with each other, and what that means is that, unless corrupt political thinking inspired by neoliberalism is consigned to history, democracy will fail, as was always its intention, as John Christensen and I discussed in a podcast at the weekend, and the people of all the countries afflicted by this curse will continue to suffer political, economic and social injustice, just as those who facilitate and promote this system always intended.
We have no perfected alternative as yet. I am quite candid about that, but the growing support for parties such as the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens in England makes clear that people are looking for that alternative. This is the moment to deliver it.
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!
Agree with the sentiment.
Moving into the sphere of entertainment: be interesting to see if Olly takes on the role of Brutus in front of a HoC committee today.
As for yesterday, Starmer was called a liar by two people in the HoC – given his past elisions: funding to become leader (not disclosed), committment to and then junking of Labour policy (despite his promises), explusion of many Labour party members on trumped up anti-sem charges – Liar, Fraud, Manchurian Candidate, DLR driver, would seem to be fair labels.
How & why did the UK body politsic get to where it is now? No marks, never-weres, liars, frauds, hypocrites (they sell it wholesale in the HoC canteen), sell-my-granny-for-political-advantage etc. HoC = augean stables. What to do?
The comment that stood out for me was: “so accustomed to seeking short-term gain that they are unable to do anything else.”
That seems to apply now in politics as much as in business and leads to asset-stripping – selling the HQ, or public utility, or PFI, or NHS service, or sacking your most skilled experienced workers in favour of an untried AI service, will realise a short term gain, so that is what is done. If that leads to the demise of the company, or public institution, no problem, as the next year can be spent leveraging the enterprise to finance directors’ emoluments and shareholders’ dividends before retreating into the protection of bankruptcy – or making the customer or public purse pay the bill. “Give the world better widgets? Why bother, who cares about making better widgets/vaccines/houses/wind turbines/care homes, health care, sewage systems?”
The same process is now driving politics. As long as the politicians’ futures are secure (board positions, consultancies, quangos, captured regulator CEOs) then who cares about the destruction of a great party, or the business of governing to make the world a better place for everyone’s benefit?
Ethics in such systems, or ethos, are then replaced by legally watertight contracts overseen by clever corporate lawyers who will always pass the blame onto someone else. As Starmer repeatedly did yesterday. He carefully confessed to an “error of judgement” which no one can punish him for, and passed the blame onto everyone else for punishable things.
“Right and wrong” are replaced by “cuo bono?”.
A serious moral crisis.
Agreed
I had to laugh at the utter absurdity of Steve Reed’s remarks. It is in a par with Laura K cancelling Zack’s interview during the Green Party conference so that the likes of Priti Patel could discuss the attack on a Manchester synagogue,when Zack is not only Jewish but from that part of Manchester. The Green Party isn’t perfect, but neither is it a hit bed of anti semitism.
It is sad,but I miss the days of the political heavyweights like Hesletine and Ken Clarke, whilst I might have political differences, they had something worth saying. Both major parties have been pretty much purged if such characters who had sense of decorum and decency and would never have contemplated such a disastrous political appointment in the first place. The public is definitely tired of what has replaced them. And one can only imagine what Tony Benn would have had to say!
On a personal note I was pleased to see my former boss, Richard Foord in the select committee. We also had political differences, but he is someone of utmost integrity, who genuinely wants to build a better world for his children.
I’m not sure how the demise of Starmer and Labour Together will play out, but they’re going to take a lot of people down with them when they go. I kind of agree with John Curtice who has said Starmer’s ratings are already so low, this probably won’t have much affect. I think many loyal Labour councillors will be losing their seats and I just hope not too many go to Reform.
Hearing yesterday’s and today’s interrogations of Starmer and Robbins and the endless conjecturing of the media, it strikes me that the wrong men are being interrogated. Blair, a man of dubious probity, has long been seen as Labour’s puppet-master working behind the scenes to impose his wishes & strategies without all that messy business of elections and public opinion. Mandelson and Blair have been closely allied over a long period – see Peter Kilfoyle’s history of that alliance at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz6y6w6zv7eo – despite Mandelson’s scandals and it seems likely to me that Starmer and Robbins were persuaded/instructed by Blair to appoint Mandelson to the post of UK Ambassador to the USA despite Mandelson’s track record.
Richard’s final para about the disillusionment of the Celtic nations with Westminster hits the nail on the head: the whole drama of the Starmer & Robbins “process” seems like foreign news to us.
Much to agree with
I am apparently English and it feels foreign to me to. Westminster is an island all of its own making. The capital is remote from the rest of the country. This state of politics is not just limited to Britain but many European capitals too. Our governments claim the post ww2 order is still functioning when it is not. We have drifting apart from it and what many of politicians take for granted is simply not there.
Reminds me of a quote from one of my favourite films ‘Cat on a Hot Tin Roof’ (1958) with Big Daddy laying out the truth to his son:
‘Mendacity. What do you know about mendacity? I could write a book on it…Mendacity. Look at all the lies that I got to put up with. Pretenses. Hypocrisy. Pretendin’ like I care for Big Mama, I haven’t been able to stand that woman in forty years. Church! It bores me. But I go. And all those swindlin’ lodges and social clubs and money-grabbin’ auxiliaries. It’s-it’s got me on the number one sucker list. Boy, I’ve lived with mendacity. Now why can’t you live with it? You’ve got to live with it. There’s nothin’ to live with but mendacity. Is there?’
I did not know what that word meant until heard it in a Holywood film. We live in mendacious times for sure. And mendacity I think goes to the heart of what we think is ‘democracy’ these days – we kid ourselves – lie to ourselves even – about it.
Big Daddy’s soliloquy ends on a question that must be answered. My own conclusion is that it’s time for human beings to grow up at long last. The dream times of Neo-liberalism are effectively over.
Much to agree with
What an absolutely cracking article. They do say that if you can find a true authority on almost any subject, they will be capable of making a concise summary.
This is just what this article does for me.
What a pleasure to read. Thank you!
Many thanks, Brian
My wife was also keen on it
A winner
Steve Reed, the man schooled by Mandelson and mentor to McSweeney in Lambeth. Steve Reed, the self-declared Zionist who, in 2018, along with McSweeney set up a “secret” group to select a Leader who fitted McSweeney’s bill to defeat Corbyn in a General Election which hadn’t even been announced. Steve Reed, who was instrumental getting Starmer elected in the Labour leadership election in 2019. Steve Reed, chum of Mandelson, who supported him when he said he intended to work every day to ensure Corbyn never became Prime Minister.
That Steve Reed.
I cannot help thinking people are not looking for those who had such a driving need for Mandelson to take the place of a perfectly good and honourable Ambassador, as Richard said the other day.
I sense the Epstein matter and Israel.have something to do with it. And Blair who let’s not forget is/was on Trump’s Board of Peace – heaven forbid.
It feels as though we are being taken through a performance that will mask the reality behind this ‘crisis’. What is remaining hidden?
[…] wrote yesterday about the incoherence of neoliberal politics. Waking rather too early this morning, as the sun was rising, another thought occurred to me. After […]
It’s long but it describes the whole sordid affair. The mainstream media will never report this.
https://open.substack.com/pub/jonathancook/p/the-real-story-tying-starmer-and?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email