I would like to be interested in Labour's plans to appoint a new leader, and so the Prime Minister of the UK. I have to admit, I am not.
I know that we will suffer almost endless discussion of this issue for weeks to come until Starmer is gone, a successor is appointed, and Andy Burnham is left in perpetual exile in Manchester, as I think likely.
But the real question is why should I be interested in a contest where the choice seems to be between Wes Streeting, Angela Rayner and Andy Burnham?
None has any notable leadership talent.
As far as I can tell, none of them has any understanding of economics of any sort, and when Burnham last stood to be leader, in the contest that saw Jeremy Corbyn win the day, his offering was dismally neoliberal. I expect nothing different from either him or the other two now. Nor do I see any chance that Labour might change course as a consequence of the election of any of these three, or someone else.
We can, of course, rank them from least bad to terrible. Joint least bad are Andy Burnham and Angela Rayner.
The award for being terrible undoubtedly goes to Wes Streeting, who long ago sold his soul, and anything else he could lay his hands on, to private equity financiers, but there can be little doubt that the other two share his conviction, which has underpinned Labour's decline, that there is nothing that it can do which markets cannot do better.
Add to this the fact that all three of these candidates, plus every Labour MP, can only speak in jargon, and this leadership campaign, which will surely happen, looks to be as exciting as a contested vote for the appointment of a liquidator of a failed company.
I am so bored of hearing ministers and MPs talking about Labour “concentrating on delivery”. I yell at the television in response, “Of what?” And, of course, to that question, there is no answer.
This is, of course, the point we would inevitably reach when Tony Blair created verb-free soundbite politics, and “verb-free” was the key point there. The veneer of government action, when the only desired outcome was the transfer of power and wealth to a financial elite, was the objective that Blair set for the Labour Party, and that is where it has headed ever since.
Labour is now populated by people without a shred of political conviction, concern for the people the party was created to serve, or even understanding that they have the power to effect change in the world that desperately needs it. Their service is to oligarchs, the City of London, the interests of large multinational corporations and, all too obviously these days, Zionism.
We must, and I very strongly suspect we will, have a new Prime Minister. When the consensus is that a Prime Minister must go, their chance of survival is close to zero, most especially when that consensus is rationally based, as it is on this occasion.
But let me be clear, we do not need a new Labour Prime Minister. Even less do we need a new Conservative Prime Minister. And we most certainly do not need Nigel Farage in Number 10, not that I really think he has any ambition to get there, so keen has he been in the past to avoid responsibility, accountability and the loss of personal income that will go with both.
Instead, we need new politics. The rise of the Green Party of England and Wales reflects that fact, but so far the offering is flawed, potentially by policy incoherence, but also by entryism, which will always be a problem for a party in its position, where its popularity is rising so rapidly.
That is why the foundations matter. And it is to those foundations that I want to dedicate my time.
I'm not saying that I will be giving up political commentary here, because to do so would break a 20-year habit, but without new thinking and new explanations, we are stuck with what we have, and that is failing us terribly.
The time for new ideas is now, and in that context, you should read all of this post as, in part, justification to myself for having woken up in the night and spent two hours sketching out, in incomplete form, an explanation for what has happened, which is not ready for publication as yet.
That is another way of saying that I can still find politics as exciting as ever when I focus on what might be possible rather than what is failing, and it is the decision to focus on what is possible that motivates me now.
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!
The reason to hope for Andy Burnham is just that he has said he will bring in electoral reform. We can hope that he means real proportional representation. PR is probably the only hope of averting a Reform government, and he knows that. Burnham would be hoping that it would preserve some foothold for Labour in the political future. I imagine he hopes it would give him a positive write up in the history books – the man who dragged the mother of parliaments into modernity, who saved the UK from the neofascists knocking at the door.
I can’t disagree.
You don’t mention Ed Miliband. It is reported, today, that he is being asked to consider running for leadership. A lot of back benchers don’t want Wes, they know Angela is too extreme and worry that she is not liked by the electorate (i.e. disliked more than the rest of them), and Andy Burnham is not an MP and it’s problematical that he could become one given the current unpopularity of the Government. And that leaves Ed.
Now Ed Miliband does not, apparently, wish to be PM (who can blame him). But I’m so tired of repeated egotists fighting to be PM with no idea what they would do and little aptitude for the job. Not wanting the job is, in my view, a point in his favour. Sure, he’s been leader before, and he lost an election (but with a vote share little less than that of Labour’s victory at the last election). But, to me, that gives him experience and perhaps, hopefully, a little humility.
Sadly, he studied PPE at Oxford and has an MSc in Economics from the LSE. So, I guess, he’s indoctrinated in neoliberal economics. One can’t expect great things from him. But, perhaps, he would be a good leader to oversee the demise of the Labour party.
It’s past redemption, IMO
The thing to do is to carry on regardless with what you do – generating new ideas (some of the new ideas will be ‘old’ and good new ideas that have still not seen the light of day). I am sure British politics will appoint a new continuity candidate and they too will fail because the underlying culture of where we are will not want to change at all. And so it will go until at some stage we fade from the universe with a long goodbye we are on or we change.
You have to keep going, just like I have to keep working against what stops me developing new affordable housing (under-funding, poor training, poor resources etc).
But at the bottom of all this is the need to take back control. As Tim Snyder says in his book of the the moment (On Freedom – 2024, p.49):
‘It leads us to think that we have solved our problems when we have privatized them, when in all we have achieved is separating ourselves from one another’.
This is what our lazy politicians have done, so you are right to focus on where the changes should be made – within politics itself because politics at the moment is about enabling power to be unaccountable – and can’t we all think of examples of that? And this is what we need the positive freedom FROM – unaccountability. Because we need the positive freedom to be able TO change.
Much to agree with
There was an interesting comment on the Olympics.
There are several athletes who would have done very well, BUT they ‘peaked’ at the wrong time.
In the same way Andy Burnham is currently not in Parliament
Todays news suggests Ed Milliband has been asked to stand against Starmer
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/may/09/mps-from-labours-left-to-urge-ed-miliband-to-consider-leadership-bid
Failing that I am available to lead the Country in its hour of need.
Go for it
They could find you a seat
Go for it Prof!
Labour became Liarbour, another shell party for the elites.
If nothing is done we will have a Tory Reform alliance taking the next election.
(Have said this before but the biggest cost of living is housing, unreported rampant inflation eroding local businesses and living standards that no wages can keep up with. )
The longer Starmer clings to power, the worse things will get. His stubbornness is destroying the Labour Party and they now hold nil legitimacy with the public at large. The hegemony of a 400 seat majority has now collapsed. Without McSweeny he is bereft of any thought process at all. Bringing in Gordon Brown and co back as advisors is a very tedious cop out and Starmer’s indecision will still delay any meaningfully positive action.
.
When Starmer took over the leadership, I remember thinking that he had no fire in his belly. Very rapidly, I realised he had no innate value system either. If you don’t have that, against what do you measure your policies?
Even then, my fear was that he – and his “changed” Party – would get into power and fail, taking the name and Party of “Labour” down with him. I have no sympathy for Starmer in his fall from grace. But he has destroyed any chance of a genuine Labour Government getting into power again for decades.
And for that he should be consigned to the Ninth Circle of Hell.
‘the time for new ideas is now'<p>
It is such a ‘new idea’ to get corrupt money out of politics that it just cant be mentioned. Farage’s 5 million ‘should have been declared’ – . No it shouldn’t, it should be illegal to have such political donations.<p>
Labour at present isnt a party in the sense of a democratic membership organisation. It is an autocratic faction funded by corporate and foreign interests. A change of leader among the coterie that runs it wont change that.<p>
A ‘new idea’ would be a movement to campaign to clean up the whole system – money , 2nd jobs, insider contracts, bribery for honours etc. But where will that come from?
Labour lacks talent, ideas or sensible policies. It has repetitive phrases – notably those using the word change, it keeps repeating it has a mandate – but a third of the vote suggests otherwise. There is also the use of the term ‘working people’ which Starmer used on Friday when Skates was announced as Labours interim leader in Wales. Skates will hold the Welsh government “to account for working people”! So who are these working people? those in the City of London? What about the rest of the electorate? It sounds like a reversion to some early C20th labour movement which is pretty bizarre as Labour is in hock to the Tufton street free market lobby groups and their ilk!