Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party?
Discussion
Hants PHer said:
I too listened to "Call Keir" on Nick Ferrari's LBC show this morning, All of what you report is true, and I was struck by two things:
1) how SKS appeared to endorse current Conservative policies (as you say). This leads him into confused positions - for example he said that he opposed privatisation of the NHS but then advocated using private healthcare to reduce NHS waiting lists.
2) he is desperate not to upset anyone, nor admit to any changes of mind. He said that Jeremy Corbyn had never been a friend, despite having described Corbyn as a friend and colleague in 2020. Why not just say "I once regarded him as a friend, but now I don't, because of XYZ"?
I suppose those are the knots he ties himself in when he doesn't appear to have any strong principles in the first place. He does seem to be a very decent person (unlike Boris) but a leader with a clear vision and strategic plans to deliver that vision?
On 1), I think he is absolutely clear. Doesn't matter who provides the care (NHS/private) as long as it is free at the point of delivery and part of an NHS pathway - so still access through GP etc. The problem I have with that is that the private providers cherry pick what they pick up which makes it more difficult to sustain services because NHS hospitals, which have to provide the full range of services, lose income.1) how SKS appeared to endorse current Conservative policies (as you say). This leads him into confused positions - for example he said that he opposed privatisation of the NHS but then advocated using private healthcare to reduce NHS waiting lists.
2) he is desperate not to upset anyone, nor admit to any changes of mind. He said that Jeremy Corbyn had never been a friend, despite having described Corbyn as a friend and colleague in 2020. Why not just say "I once regarded him as a friend, but now I don't, because of XYZ"?
I suppose those are the knots he ties himself in when he doesn't appear to have any strong principles in the first place. He does seem to be a very decent person (unlike Boris) but a leader with a clear vision and strategic plans to deliver that vision?
AstonZagato said:
Hants PHer said:
..snip...
I suppose those are the knots he ties himself in when he doesn't appear to have any strong principles in the first place. He does seem to be a very decent person (unlike Boris) but a leader with a clear vision and strategic plans to deliver that vision?
I'm not sure he's morally that different to Boris. I suspect he is just rather better at hiding his naked ambition and lack of principles. I suppose those are the knots he ties himself in when he doesn't appear to have any strong principles in the first place. He does seem to be a very decent person (unlike Boris) but a leader with a clear vision and strategic plans to deliver that vision?
At the leadership election I had him down as someone who would say or do anything to get power, but judged that he was so utterly vacuous that that would include things that were broadly popular across a large swathe of the electorate but were from the left-wing grab bag (like nationalising energy, water, rail and mail, for instance). It quickly became clear that SKS does have principles, but they are mostly Blair-esque principles - economic liberalism, social authoritarianism, neoliberal political hegemony, protecting the British state and establishment (which was basically his role as DPP) and so on. His purpose was to render the Labour Party 'safe' and to vigorously signal to his ideological fellows that it was so.
If he was literally an empty suit of a man who would do anything to get in power, he wouldn't be so vigorously rejecting the popular bits of the last two manifestos or the activist/voter base that came with them. He wouldn't proudly, openly say that he's willing to lie to the left to get Labour into power, and wouldn't literally tell millions of voters that their support isn't welcome or wanted. He's not actually trying to triangulate between left, centre and right, but between centre and right. Blair style, baby! SKS does have beliefs, but they are largely indistinguishable from late New Labour/Con-Lib Coalition positions and have a huge overlap with current government policy. You can see that by joining the dots of the things he has said he won't do, and the people and views he has worked so ruthlessly to evict from his party.
2xChevrons said:
AstonZagato said:
Hants PHer said:
..snip...
I suppose those are the knots he ties himself in when he doesn't appear to have any strong principles in the first place. He does seem to be a very decent person (unlike Boris) but a leader with a clear vision and strategic plans to deliver that vision?
I'm not sure he's morally that different to Boris. I suspect he is just rather better at hiding his naked ambition and lack of principles. I suppose those are the knots he ties himself in when he doesn't appear to have any strong principles in the first place. He does seem to be a very decent person (unlike Boris) but a leader with a clear vision and strategic plans to deliver that vision?
<snip>
Likewise whatever distance Starmer will travel and in which moral compass direction remains to be seen. It may be that he really is significantly higher up the political evolutionary scale than Boris, after all it is a low bar. Waiting to avoid premature adjudication seems reasonable.
2xChevrons said:
Obviously I have no personal acquaintance or experience with either man, but I get the impression that SKS is not as bad as Boris, certainly in his personal life. But that's a pretty low bar to clear. He's always come across to me as someone who is mostly about personal advancement and power - right from when he pointedly didn't vote for Corbyn in the 2015 leadership election, took a role in the shadow cabinet, then resigned in protest at Corbyn's leadership, then returned to the shadow cabinet when it was clear that JC wasn't going anywhere yet.
As you say, this is damning with faint praise2xChevrons said:
At the leadership election I had him down as someone who would say or do anything to get power, but judged that he was so utterly vacuous that that would include things that were broadly popular across a large swathe of the electorate but were from the left-wing grab bag (like nationalising energy, water, rail and mail, for instance). It quickly became clear that SKS does have principles, but they are mostly Blair-esque principles - economic liberalism, social authoritarianism, neoliberal political hegemony, protecting the British state and establishment (which was basically his role as DPP) and so on. His purpose was to render the Labour Party 'safe' and to vigorously signal to his ideological fellows that it was so.
Is this a stand of principles or naked ambition? If he wants to be elected, the conventional wisdom is that one needs to fight on the centre gorund (hence the "Stevenage Woman" that Labour strategists have focused on allegedly. It feels like he is adopting a position to gain an electoral advantage rather than any deep-felt belief.2xChevrons said:
If he was literally an empty suit of a man who would do anything to get in power, he wouldn't be so vigorously rejecting the popular bits of the last two manifestos or the activist/voter base that came with them. He wouldn't proudly, openly say that he's willing to lie to the left to get Labour into power, and wouldn't literally tell millions of voters that their support isn't welcome or wanted. He's not actually trying to triangulate between left, centre and right, but between centre and right. Blair style, baby! SKS does have beliefs, but they are largely indistinguishable from late New Labour/Con-Lib Coalition positions and have a huge overlap with current government policy. You can see that by joining the dots of the things he has said he won't do, and the people and views he has worked so ruthlessly to evict from his party.
It was a manifesto that lost (or failed to win). It appealed to the core vote but not enough of middle England. He might have made a calculation that the millions of voters who liked the last manifesto are nailed on Labour voters under any circumstances and so he no longer needs to appeal to them. They aren't ever going to vote Conservative and even if they are thinking of jumping ship to the Liberals or voting for a more leftist party, then the risk for the voter is that a split Labour vote just ends with another Tory government. So he can safely woo the centre and make noises about not wanting the left.Either way, it suggests naked ambition and a lack of any principles.
AstonZagato said:
It was a manifesto that lost (or failed to win). It appealed to the core vote but not enough of middle England. He might have made a calculation that the millions of voters who liked the last manifesto are nailed on Labour voters under any circumstances and so he no longer needs to appeal to them. They aren't ever going to vote Conservative and even if they are thinking of jumping ship to the Liberals or voting for a more leftist party, then the risk for the voter is that a split Labour vote just ends with another Tory government. So he can safely woo the centre and make noises about not wanting the left.
Either way, it suggests naked ambition and a lack of any principles.
Well he directly told loads of us on the left of the party's support base to (in so many words) get lost and - anecdotal evidence time - I am only one of many people of my acquaintance who will not be voting for Labour under Starmer. For a lot of us, myself included, we weren't after a complete 'continuity Corbyn' agenda, but there was (and is) a vast ground between the high-paced, sweeping radicalism of the 2017/19 manifestos and what Labour under Starmer appears to be. He hasn't even chucked as the smallest, puniest bone. If he wants to gamble on people like me voting for him for lack of an alternative (or arrogantly assumes that he has a right to those votes since he wears a red tie) then he may well be sorely disappointed. Either way, it suggests naked ambition and a lack of any principles.
As well as being a cringey call-back to Mondeo Man, and another instance of how those in charge of the Labour Party think they can recreate 1997 by willing it back into existence, "Stevenage Woman" is a perfect example - Labour themselves have identified that demographic as 'socially conservative mothers who are disengaged from politics'. What a fantastic voter base for an ostensibly progressive political party - a group with conservative social views that doesn't care about politics. They might as well have said "our target voter is disgruntled Tories, and we're going to get them by bowing to their existing views rather than offering an alternative." In fact they did exactly that last year, when their apparent target voter was Middle Aged Manager Mortgage Man.
Polling consistently shows that over half the electorate notionally back nationalisation of energy (including 55 per cent of Conservative voters at the last survey I saw). Between a half and two-thirds consistently back nationalisation of the railways (including a slim majority of Conservative voters). The same goes for reversing privatisation of the NHS. Three quarters of Conservative voters backed the idea of a windfall tax on oil and gas companies last year. Nearly two thirds of Conservative voters want to see higher taxes on wealth, and three quarters want higher corporation tax.
Here's a deeply scientific (I jest...) study by Gyles Brandreth who finds lots of 'shy socialists' in Guildford in 2017: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7lsRbDKOXg
Of course there is a difference between general polling and choosing a manifesto, and it comes down as much (if not more) to the personalities and parties involved than the ideas in general. But the notion that any ideas to the left of Blair's first term are simply politically unviable is simply not true. There is clearly fertile intellectual and electoral ground ready to be ploughed, sown, watered and nurtured. It just needs a farmer who actually believes in it rather than one who is committed to growing yet another field of over-bred industrial cash crop because it made a bumper profit 25 years ago even though the yields have been dropping year on year ever since.
A lot of people thought Starmer would be that sort of leader, because that's what he told the Labour Party he was going to be - progressive and radical at his core, but with less activist baggage than the Old Left, a less dogmatic approach and a better ability to work with the media. Plane the weird spikes, niche causes and scary appropriations off the existing platform but retain the core. Same goal but a slower pace and a friendlier tone.
Of course it was all grievous overselling at best and outright lies at worst.
2xChevrons said:
Nearly two thirds of Conservative voters want to see higher taxes on wealth,
As is always the case,voters want to see higher taxes on other people's wealth. They want to tax those as perceived as wealthier than themselves- this is jealousy in a socially caring wrapper.Biggy Stardust said:
As is always the case,voters want to see higher taxes on other people's wealth. They want to tax those as perceived as wealthier than themselves- this is jealousy in a socially caring wrapper.
Almost certainly (on the first sentence - I don't agree with the second). But that doesn't change the fact that there is theoretically a surface there for a more redistributive political platform to get traction on.I've just looked up the figures - by Survation in partnership with the University of Sheffield:
74% of respondents wanted to see higher taxes on wealth (88% of Labour voters, 64% of Conservatives) and 46% of Conservatives said they were personally prepared to pay more tax in order to fund public services (62% for Labour voters). 91% of Conservative voters wanted the government to close tax loopholes to stop companies and wealthy individuals avoiding tax. 74% of Conservative voters polled wanted to see an increase in corporation tax and three quarters of them supported the idea of a mansion tax on homes valued at over £2 million.
The actual political centre ground out there in the country at large is extremely out of kilter with what the political and media establishment decides is acceptable.
2xChevrons said:
74% of respondents wanted to see higher taxes on wealth (88% of Labour voters, 64% of Conservatives) and 46% of Conservatives said they were personally prepared to pay more tax in order to fund public services (62% for Labour voters). 91% of Conservative voters wanted the government to close tax loopholes to stop companies and wealthy individuals avoiding tax. 74% of Conservative voters polled wanted to see an increase in corporation tax and three quarters of them supported the idea of a mansion tax on homes valued at over £2 million.
The actual political centre ground out there in the country at large is extremely out of kilter with what the political and media establishment decides is acceptable.
People lie to pollsters. There have been many examples of this.The actual political centre ground out there in the country at large is extremely out of kilter with what the political and media establishment decides is acceptable.
Any wishing to pay additional tax are free to do so- when this is pointed out they then come up with their excuses. Note Wedgie Benn - what he said & what he did were 2 very different things.
Edited by Biggy Stardust on Monday 3rd April 16:41
2xChevrons said:
Polling consistently shows that over half the electorate notionally back nationalisation of energy (including 55 per cent of Conservative voters at the last survey I saw).
I think it is clear that Starmer is where he is, and has the favourable media coverage he does, as he is acceptable to the money men. See him also arriving as a supplicant to Davos this year with his core team.He will hit the aspirational middle class, whether that be hitting private schools or their pensions, but he will not fundamentally challenge the truly wealthy, that is why he is where he is and Corbyn has been cast out of the Labour party to make sure.
It is probably perfectly possible to combine a progressive agenda with low carbon power generation. What we have seen since the early 2000s is not it, to put it mildly.
JagLover said:
I think it is clear that Starmer is where he is, and has the favourable media coverage he does, as he is acceptable to the money men. See him also arriving as a supplicant to Davos this year with his core team.
He will hit the aspirational middle class, whether that be hitting private schools or their pensions, but he will not fundamentally challenge the truly wealthy, that is why he is where he is and Corbyn has been cast out of the Labour party to make sure.
It is probably perfectly possible to combine a progressive agenda with low carbon power generation. What we have seen since the early 2000s is not it, to put it mildly.
Spot on with all three paragraphs, imo. He will hit the aspirational middle class, whether that be hitting private schools or their pensions, but he will not fundamentally challenge the truly wealthy, that is why he is where he is and Corbyn has been cast out of the Labour party to make sure.
It is probably perfectly possible to combine a progressive agenda with low carbon power generation. What we have seen since the early 2000s is not it, to put it mildly.
I noticed a while back that Starmer's most recent take on the Green New Deal conspicuously doesn't mention the push for SMRs (as a quid-pro-quo for continuing the development of the Dreadnought subs) that was in the original 2019 version as part of the general plan for municipalisation and localisation of energy production. Now it's just a stock commitment to 'new nuclear' as part of the general decarbonisation of the energy sector. Which sounds like more of the same approaches that got us into our current mess.
The more I hear Starmer the more convinced I am he hasn’t a plan to win the election. He doesn’t seem to believe in anything just sways with the wind as I guess he thinks the public are so thick they will just vote for him because he has a few sound bites. Wonder if Stevenage woman has a penis?
JagLover said:
I think it is clear that Starmer is where he is, and has the favourable media coverage he does, as he is acceptable to the money men. See him also arriving as a supplicant to Davos this year with his core team.
He will hit the aspirational middle class, whether that be hitting private schools or their pensions, but he will not fundamentally challenge the truly wealthy, that is why he is where he is and Corbyn has been cast out of the Labour party to make sure.
It is probably perfectly possible to combine a progressive agenda with low carbon power generation. What we have seen since the early 2000s is not it, to put it mildly.
Agree with that.He will hit the aspirational middle class, whether that be hitting private schools or their pensions, but he will not fundamentally challenge the truly wealthy, that is why he is where he is and Corbyn has been cast out of the Labour party to make sure.
It is probably perfectly possible to combine a progressive agenda with low carbon power generation. What we have seen since the early 2000s is not it, to put it mildly.
2xChevrons said:
Polling consistently shows that over half the electorate notionally back nationalisation of energy (including 55 per cent of Conservative voters at the last survey I saw). Between a half and two-thirds consistently back nationalisation of the railways (including a slim majority of Conservative voters). The same goes for reversing privatisation of the NHS. Three quarters of Conservative voters backed the idea of a windfall tax on oil and gas companies last year. Nearly two thirds of Conservative voters want to see higher taxes on wealth, and three quarters want higher corporation tax.
It's a good point. Me, I'm the hardest of hard core natural born Tories but I can see with my own eyes that private enterprise has failed to deliver good public services across the board, and that directly impacts the quality of life for everyone: even the super-rich have to use the same potholed, overcrowded roads as the rest of us. I am very open to anything which promises to break the stranglehold that giant quasi-monopolies have on service provision but I'm not hearing any credible alternatives from Labour right now. A straight return to pre-Thatcher models of public ownership wouldn't appeal to me as that didn't really work either (unless you were a union baron). But we have to get away from having services "delivered" by largely foreign-owned companies focused on delivering shareholder returns to the exclusion of all else.
Where did all the political and economic deep thinkers go? We used to have loads of them, Left and Right. Now everyone is just using focus groups and opinion polls to help put a more appealing presentational spin on a tired, timid and failing status quo. This is how decline happens.
2xChevrons said:
Polling consistently shows that over half the electorate notionally back nationalisation of energy (including 55 per cent of Conservative voters at the last survey I saw). Between a half and two-thirds consistently back nationalisation of the railways (including a slim majority of Conservative voters). The same goes for reversing privatisation of the NHS. Three quarters of Conservative voters backed the idea of a windfall tax on oil and gas companies last year. Nearly two thirds of Conservative voters want to see higher taxes on wealth, and three quarters want higher corporation tax.
And the death penalty.230TE said:
2xChevrons said:
Polling consistently shows that over half the electorate notionally back nationalisation of energy (including 55 per cent of Conservative voters at the last survey I saw). Between a half and two-thirds consistently back nationalisation of the railways (including a slim majority of Conservative voters). The same goes for reversing privatisation of the NHS. Three quarters of Conservative voters backed the idea of a windfall tax on oil and gas companies last year. Nearly two thirds of Conservative voters want to see higher taxes on wealth, and three quarters want higher corporation tax.
It's a good point. Me, I'm the hardest of hard core natural born Tories but I can see with my own eyes that private enterprise has failed to deliver good public services across the board, and that directly impacts the quality of life for everyone: even the super-rich have to use the same potholed, overcrowded roads as the rest of us. I am very open to anything which promises to break the stranglehold that giant quasi-monopolies have on service provision but I'm not hearing any credible alternatives from Labour right now. A straight return to pre-Thatcher models of public ownership wouldn't appeal to me as that didn't really work either (unless you were a union baron). But we have to get away from having services "delivered" by largely foreign-owned companies focused on delivering shareholder returns to the exclusion of all else.
Where did all the political and economic deep thinkers go? We used to have loads of them, Left and Right. Now everyone is just using focus groups and opinion polls to help put a more appealing presentational spin on a tired, timid and failing status quo. This is how decline happens.
At the same time if those frameworks are too restrictive then private enterprises will not invest.
Theres no doubt it's not right in a lot of areas.
Also a rock and a hard place for Joe public:
Under public ownership these things were characterised by incompetence and a piss-taking workforce.
Under private ownership it seems we have more incompetence and piss-taking ownership/management.
The reason virtually everything of importance is privatised is that the workforces of those important utilities and services had a nasty habit of holding the country to ransom on a regular basis.
I suppose everything is cyclical though, so we will probably go through a process of extremely expensive re-nationalisation only to find out why it was that they were sold off.
I suppose everything is cyclical though, so we will probably go through a process of extremely expensive re-nationalisation only to find out why it was that they were sold off.
Wombat3 said:
Its a failure of regulation and the lack of adequately tight frameworks within which private enterprises should be operating...which in turn is a failure of government.
At the same time if those frameworks are too restrictive then private enterprises will not invest.
Theres no doubt it's not right in a lot of areas.
Also a rock and a hard place for Joe public:
Under public ownership these things were characterised by incompetence and a piss-taking workforce.
Under private ownership it seems we have more incompetence and piss-taking ownership/management.
This IMO. At the same time if those frameworks are too restrictive then private enterprises will not invest.
Theres no doubt it's not right in a lot of areas.
Also a rock and a hard place for Joe public:
Under public ownership these things were characterised by incompetence and a piss-taking workforce.
Under private ownership it seems we have more incompetence and piss-taking ownership/management.
Murph7355 said:
Wombat3 said:
Its a failure of regulation and the lack of adequately tight frameworks within which private enterprises should be operating...which in turn is a failure of government.
At the same time if those frameworks are too restrictive then private enterprises will not invest.
Theres no doubt it's not right in a lot of areas.
Also a rock and a hard place for Joe public:
Under public ownership these things were characterised by incompetence and a piss-taking workforce.
Under private ownership it seems we have more incompetence and piss-taking ownership/management.
This IMO. At the same time if those frameworks are too restrictive then private enterprises will not invest.
Theres no doubt it's not right in a lot of areas.
Also a rock and a hard place for Joe public:
Under public ownership these things were characterised by incompetence and a piss-taking workforce.
Under private ownership it seems we have more incompetence and piss-taking ownership/management.
turbobloke said:
Murph7355 said:
Wombat3 said:
Its a failure of regulation and the lack of adequately tight frameworks within which private enterprises should be operating...which in turn is a failure of government.
At the same time if those frameworks are too restrictive then private enterprises will not invest.
Theres no doubt it's not right in a lot of areas.
Also a rock and a hard place for Joe public:
Under public ownership these things were characterised by incompetence and a piss-taking workforce.
Under private ownership it seems we have more incompetence and piss-taking ownership/management.
This IMO. At the same time if those frameworks are too restrictive then private enterprises will not invest.
Theres no doubt it's not right in a lot of areas.
Also a rock and a hard place for Joe public:
Under public ownership these things were characterised by incompetence and a piss-taking workforce.
Under private ownership it seems we have more incompetence and piss-taking ownership/management.
Services were s
t and expensive then. They are now. Different people "benefitted".I'm a "small state" advocate so would much prefer we had a govt who sorted out the regulation side, only stepping in further if it proved impossible to find private companies who could run a business with the regulations in force... Which is also what Wombat was getting at.
If that wasn't possible, I want a govt to assess properly whether the regulations are sensible before automatically assuming the service must be provided by govt...
What cannot be allowed to happen is for private companies to be seen to be making large profits when taxpayers are expected to take the downsides. Which seems to happen too frequently (though that could often just be perception).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff