Regular reader Ian Lovegrove read the article I wrote on 3 January about Labour's apparent plans to deliver tax cuts, in which I attacked DSyarmer's vision for this party and this country, and sent me an email in response. With his permission, I share it here:
I completely agree with Richard's observations. I never supported Starmer as Labour Leader from the outset and everything I have read or heard about him since then has reinforced my original negative view of him.
It is obvious that Starmer is an economics ignoramus. (He shares this in common with many British politicians, including several who have been Chancellors.) That is a criticism but need not necessarily be a damning one. That depends on whom he listens to. Franklin Roosevelt believed in balanced federal budgets, before the theoretical basis of activist macroeconomic management had been formally articulated. But he knew that there had to be a radical change and he listened to Keynes and corresponded with him.
Starmer's economics ignorance is damning because he listens to Rachel Reeves who is a committed neoliberal and may believe that neoliberalism is economic science when it is nothing more than an ideology which supports untrammelled capitalism, which, unless it is overthrown, will make planet earth uninhabitable. This cannot but end in tears. Jeremy Corbyn's economics understanding was somewhat lacking but at least he had as Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, who understands economics and especially macroeconomics well enough, although he was not the best communicator to the general public.
Starmer's economic ignorance is not his only shortcoming as a politician; it's the central failing. The whole Starmer programme lacks positivity. Noel Coward thought that Britain's religion was Mediocrity and he felt antagonised and disenchanted accordingly. Nye Bevan said “the religion of socialism is the language of priorities”. Unfortunately, Labour has almost nothing to do with socialism, and its religion is Mediocrity. In this respect, it is a microcosm of British society in general.
The Labour Party has no real ideology. Clause IV gave it at least a formal commitment to public ownership, which it no longer has. Clause I of Labour's constitution states that Labour's objective is to elect Labour MPs to Parliament. That confuses ends with means. But it does mean that in essence the pursuit of power is the be-all and end-all. Nothing else matters. That is one sufficient reason why Starmer and his ilk, which now dominates the Labour Party will never countenance PR.
In this Labour resembles the Conservative Party. But there is one crucial difference. At least the Conservative Party wants power to serve the interests of the rich and powerful. Neoliberalism is a fitting ideology for it. But the Labour Party is supposed to serve the interests of ordinary working people. Neoliberalism is manifestly ill-suited to that purpose. (One is reminded of Einstein's definition of insanity!) Starmer in one sense is worse even than the insufferable pipsqueak fascist Sunak. At least Sunak is not a traitor to his class. But Starmer is. The Labour Party led by him is nothing more than the Continuity Conservative Party.
Nowhere in Labour's constitution is an actual purpose – other than Clause I – stated. Without such a purpose, is it any wonder that Labour cannot present a consistent and convincing vision embodied in an integrated and thematically coherent program and that its policy is typically characterised by muddling through? That was the case with its Brexit policy. If Labour's purpose had been “To protect and advance the interests of British working people”, then it could have asked itself the question: “Is Brexit in the interests of British working people?”, to which on any reasonable appraisal, the answer would have been “No”! The policy was also confounded because Labour has no clear definition of what it means by democracy. It clearly (and rightly) stands for representative democracy but so irresolutely that it allowed itself to be deflected in 2016 into support for a narrow plebiscitary outcome, representing no more than 37 per cent of the electorate. Thereafter, it floundered predictably and unconvincingly from one Brexit iteration after another, only contriving to legitimize Brexit in the eyes of the electorate. This sort of equivocation and endless trimming, doubtless reflecting the latest focus grouping of swing voters, typifies every policy area, as it's bound to do with a party devoid of any meaningful purpose – one that can rally the positive support and hopes of ordinary working people.
It has been easy for Starmer and Reeves to take over the Labour Party, ridding it of any vestige of Corbynism, and implanting – or more accurately re-implanting - neoliberalism as its de facto ideology, faute de mieux, as nature abhors a vacuum and chastened and timorous Labour MPs could not resist with a coherent alternative narrative.
Once Labour is elected wedded to neoliberalism and yet more austerity, the ruinous policies that entails will be permanently fixed. Leopards do not change their spots and reactionary governments do not become progressive ones. (And the Labour Party does not defenestrate Labour prime ministers.) At the next general election but one a Starmer-led Labour Party would be offering more of the same austerity/mediocrity/neoliberalism that it proposes now.
There is little doubt that democracy is under threat in the western world. The USA is the most obvious and critical case, where the threat of a second Trump presidency and the advent of an authoritarian or fascist, score-settling regime is v real and would embolden other western parties to emulate it, including the Conservatives in the UK.
I am too old to worry personally about the baleful prospects for the world that seem all too likely. I have no family to worry about. (“Apres moi, le deluge!”) But from a humanitarian perspective and as a member of the human race and knowing that there is a viable alternative, not articulated or proselytised, that would lead to a sustainable and harmonious world, I despair.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Nye Bevan said “the religion of socialism is the language of priorities”.
That’s right.
In terms of mediocrity however, I see this as a symptom of an addiction to austerity polices that simply negate the state’s power to improve the condition of society/our people at the wish of our Establishment and their permanent class war against working people.
This class war entrenches the Establishment’s position – they remain king of the castle – by virtue of their money derived power that increasingly influences the management of the country.
Mediocrity is not tolerated in the lives of the Establishment who expect and obtain the best for themselves.
Mediocrity however is perfectly suitable for the rest of us because we are just here for our lives to be exploited.
As a working class person I am rather sensitive to all of this and have never ever seen this country as a democracy. Indeed, it has become less democratic over the years where now it seems it is OK to manifestly defund services like the NHS and housing in broad daylight.
And as Ian has discussed, the Labour party proposes to do nothing about this at all.
The Conservative party is no longer the conservative party; the Labour party is no longer the labour party.
What we have is two puppet political organisations with the hands of the rich shoved up their backsides pretending to be something they are not in a system that was loosely designed to let this happen when the time was right.
It does seem like the notion of democratic legitimacy has essentially been thrown out the window.
Boris was voted in promising to invest. He didn’t really end austerity, but that’s what voters voted for.
Rishi “Tunbridge Wells” Sunak & Hunt have just created a massive apocalypse to come for our public services. They’ve also attacked disabled people again, because violations of their human rights according to UN Special Rapporteurs wasn’t enough.
Starmer was elected to lead Labour with Corbyn’s policies. Peter Mandelson admits it was all a lie now; practically every pledge has been rolled back. More austerity promised. Labour now say that Membership are to be managed, not engaged with.
Politicians do not really seem to think themselves beholden to the public, and they’re probably correct to be. We’ve built a deeply inequal world and we’re currently watching democracy be stripped back in the name of continued ecological disaster, in the name of imaginary scores and line go up.
It is a sorry state of affairs to say the least.
ReformUK do not seem to be poised to win this election, even if they wanted to, they lack the infrastructure. But that’s not what ReformUK really want; ReformUK is about ensuring the Tories are a NatCon (or NatC, if you will) party come 2029. Given the Tories are already very willing to resort to disenfranchisement, the future doesn’t bode well.
Whilst Labour is TCP – the Tory Continuity Party, or LINO – Labour In Name Only.
Mediocre is a good word to describe the currrent Labour Party. If we were to play a word association game, some other adjectives immediately come to mind: disappointing, bland, fearful, craven, unimaginative, cowardly, helpless, hopeless, uninspiring, foolish, pointless, frustrating, disheartening, inadequate, timid……
…..vindictive, ruthless, devious….
It is a very good post.
“It is obvious that Starmer is an economics ignoramus.”
I’d suggest that it is worse than that. He lacks curiosity and thus fails to seek out those (such as you Richard and lots of others) that could provide a different way to consider how governments are funded.
I know two economists in Bx with whom I collaborate. One of them finds it very difficult to work with those that lack curiosity – those that fail to ask the question: what are we really looking at here? Those that fail to step back to get the bigger picture.
Couple this to a propensity to authoritarianism (evidence for this available by the bucket load) and it would seem the Uk is primed to stagger from one government run by imbeciles, to another. & previous posts (Den Howlett) seem to support this.
Agree with every word. Especially that the Conservatives are actually far more authentic and true to their own values than Labour. The zealots who make it to the top of the party (regardless if its a Starmer or a Corbyn) are all true believers in FPTP because it guarantees them what they most lust after: Power for its own sake. This despite that FPTP is both right-wing biased and grossly unfair. Non-believers in the party, who want PR (basically the majority), are simply ignored. Those who reach out to work with other parties are punished. The result: Starmer will be in number 10 just long enough to ‘keep the bed warm’ for the next Tory government. Labour have to be recognised for what they are: a cult, not a party. They are beneath contempt.
Labour in Name Only LINO
I like it.
Lino gets walked on. Describes the current Labour Party.
I read a bit of Bernard Russel this morning. “The Triumph of Stupidity.”
Back than America had Roosevelt to save us. Who do we have in 2025? There doesn’t look like a single healthy democracy exists. It is all in the open sea. Weak and wobbly indeed.
Jeremy Hunt MP, hilariously this morning said he couldn’t possible say whether he can do anything in the Budget about tax levels. This is January. The budget is March. He is implicitly trying to imply that he is moved by Brownian prudence not to commit until he can fully appreciate the actual financial position then. His prudence is of course heavily underscored by making the burden of £2.5Trn of national debt his central concern.
The risible hilarity arises from the absurd proposition that an enormous economic change can intervene and transform his financial room to manoeuvre in the Budget in just little more than a couple of weeks. It is absurd. He is proposing to enter a war zone, armed with a papier-mâché knife. Let us decode Conservative economic policy as it really works. What he does in the Budget depends solely on what he and Sunak believes may save the Conservatives from losing the election. They have no interest in anything else. They never, ever have; or we wouldn’t be in this mess. His manipulative use of statistics to spin false propaganda about the success of Conservative economics is plain humbug. This is dire, because there is literally no end to the damage Hunt and sunak can yet inflict in almost 52 weeks of this ineptitude and mendacious Party self-interest.
Difficult to disagree – but so depressing.
We have a system which confers dictatorial powers on a PM that has a working majority in the HoC, and few if any rules or sanctions on corrupt money buying parties and individual politicians.
An externally funded organised group can take over a party and impose election candidates irrespective of members views as Starmer and co seem to be doing.
‘Lord’ Hennesey ‘constitutional historian’ given inside access to documents and politicians, civil servants has cheered on this ‘no rules’ system, dependent on ‘good chaps’ behaving themselves, and now pretty well discredited by Johnson and co.
Starmer and co have no interest in engaging with economic ideas , and no curiosity about how the economy actually works or could be made to work better to revive public services etc. And they obviously think this strategy is working well given their poll lead.
A Labour govt with their declared ‘there is no money’ strategy will continue the catastrophic collapse of the NHS and other services and could lay the ground for an even more extreme right wing Cons/Reform.
Are we sleep walking into a pre revolutionary phase, but lying down instead of revolting?
I read with interest these well intentioned and informed comments. But, all I can see with both Labour and the Tories is one old and well worn saying “he who pays the piper”. Both parties have sold out to corrupt big money interests. Both corporate and foreign nations. How we deal with this I have no idea. But if we don’t…….
Things don’t appear to have moved on much from George Orwell’s mockery about human beings need for overly simplistic views of matters in his fable based book “Animal Farm” published in 1945. In nearly 80 years in this country we’ve gone from the overly simplistic “State capitalism good, market fundamentalism bad” to the complete opposite. It’s simply far too much hard work for most Brits to do thinking like Christine Desan and realise that flourishing market capitalism has long been dependent for existence on government created money!
“The Monetary Structure of Economic Activity: A Constitutional Analysis” Christine Desan 2023.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4585801
Agreed, entirely
I still don’t know why Corbyn and his supporters haven’t formed a Real Labour Party. There is still huge support for their vision crystallised in the 2017 Labour manifesto.
Memories of the SDP, the last attempt to form a breakaway party from Labour? Or the current electoral success of the Green Party? I’m sure many would love to form a new party, and would support it wholeheartedly. But in practical terms, under the current FPTP system it’s not a viable option, if you want to make real changes.
Think about it James.
Think about how Corbyn was treated and ask yourself if you’d want to go through that again – harried by the Tories and the MSM and stabbed in the back by people like Peter Mandelson and other Blairite Right wingers.
Time reveals all.
So many members have left the LP already, including me. A few Labour councillors around the country have gone independent. So many of the remaining members and councillors, maybe even some MPs are finding that their values and politics don’t align with those of the Labour leadership, to the point where they could potentially leave. For example – what has Clive Lewis got in common with Starmer or Reeves? Not a lot, I’d guess. Why hasn’t Jeremy Corbyn thrown in the towel? There must be a big chunk of the party that is REALLY unhappy with the way things are. So why hasn’t the exodus been greater? For some it could be simple unswerving tribalism. For others, they may be reluctant to take a risk and forego their current position, status, or salary. Some may be hoping that things might change, and that the left or centre-left may get more of a look-in eventually: if there’s a hung parliament, or when Labour is tanking in the polls once the post-election honeymoon period is over. Most will be reluctant to upset the apple cart before an election, thinking that no matter how bad Labour is positioning itself to be, it surely has to be an improvement on the Tories.
It may well be as simple as it is here in my local party.
Those who were committed socialist activists have quit or self-censored.
The self-censored make themselves feel better by accepting the doctrine from HQ and the right that it’s all about grassroots (aka no influence nationally). They do a lot of good locally, but avoid any discussion of national issues or repeat “it’s all about winning”.
The party machine (local or regional) is run by people who have always been right of centre, and who welcomed Starmer – some kbiwing exactly what was going on. I call them the friends of Lord Mann and Ruth Smeeth.
Any real revolts or questioning results in suspension or expulsion.
No candidates get chosen locally unless OK for HQ – previously overlooked postal or online votes can appear on the voting system viz Sam Tarry. Branches can be suspended and nepo babies imposed.
RIP LINO.
Jeremy Corbyn’s weak opposition to Brexit didn’t help Labour post 2016. The so called left in the Labour Party clung onto the 1970s “bosses club” trope and enabled Starmer and Co to claim Brexit was a done deal, let’s move on.
Labour cannot now attack the Tories for the most damaging self inflicted economic disaster since the 1920s.
I was active in the Labour Party in the 1970s. We used to discuss policy, put resolutions up for Conference. I understand that these activities are no longer permitted. No way would Labour have allowed to support the Israeli apartheid state or its genocide in Palestine.
The abolition of Clause IV by Blair demolished any vestige of political philosophy that the party once had. We have the ridiculous spectacle of class warriors being expelled so’s not to offend right wing bigots.
Labour is finished. They will form the next government, but will be more right wing than Heath’s 1970-74. Hell mend them.