This Once Great Movement Of Ours

[cp]

Starmer's big speech on the economy today. Some of the uber-online left doing their best to get very upset about it, but arguably the continuities with the previous regime clearly outweigh the departures.

Seems like they had good reason to be derisive. Even the Guardian is struggling to put a happy face on it.

"... he was careful to promise that good government must be the partner of good business, not its enemy."

Could have been written by the Daily Mail.

Strangely enough, I've seen plenty of positive responses to it.

Genuinely, if people like you are now going to behave as the worst of the Labour right did during the previous leadership, then it is (again) going to be a long few years for all of us.

If only my opinions carried that kind of influence!*

I don't know what to tell you: I think Starmer's speech was bad policy and bad politics. The framing of the 'spirit of 1945' or whatever was hamfisted and contrived (also pretty historically ignorant, but that's my historian side talking). The prose was dim - like most political speeches these days - and the argument was halting and equivocal. To that point, notice how many times in the speech Starmer switches from the active to passive voice, and how often he declares how 'bold' his ideas are or how sincerely he holds them. This isn't the language of effective political persuasion.

On the policy side, the only substantive proposal - a British Recovery Bond - is portrayed as a panacea (echoing the pie-in-the-sky policies that apparently Corbyn was guilty of), but, as far as it was possible to discern, would be little more than a new investment vehicle for existing policies. More problematically - and this gets to the worst part of his speech - it's a perpetuation of the same relationship between the central government and the financial/business sector that the Tories and New Labour foisted on us. I'd also note the patronizing lip service paid to racial inequality; afterthought doesn't even do it justice.

All told, this speech indicated to me that Starmer and his team are struggling to articulate an argument for why they ought to be in government beyond "we're not the Tories", and given the content of the speech, that argument seems more like a flattering self-delusion than a genuine difference.

*If they did, the Guardian's opinion section wouldn't be full of transphobes.

[cp]

"Oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them" is a cliché, but it's a cliché for a reason.

Labour tends to focus too much, knowingly or not, on their plan for re-election, rather than getting elected in the first place.

I think it's more of a platitude than a cliché. I find people tend to employ it as a rhetorical tool to deflect or muddy the waters of a debate rather than engage with it. As a matter of historical or political analysis, it's sort of like saying 'good things come to those who wait'.

In the case of 2024, and Labour more generally, I don't think presenting themselves as 'blandly inoffensive albeit competent'* will lead to victory. As pointed out above, the deck is stacked so heavily against Labour because of the electoral system and media bias, the only way for them to unilaterally change the terms of debate is with an eye-catching transformative set of proposals. Otherwise, they'll just have to hope the Tories screw up badly enough on the issues Labour is already preferred on - the NHS, education (kinda), economic inequality (undeservedly now) - that those become the terrain on which the election is fought.  


*Title of Starmer's sex tape

[cp]

Meanwhile, the genuinely intelligent and compelling journalists are relegated to patreon-supported podcasts and video essays.

This really is the worst timeline.

[cp]

Rentaghoul wrote a piece at the weekend that was so bad it *should* have been in the Absurder.

I don't get it?

Rentaghoul is a pun on John Rentoul's name. Absurder is a pun on the newspaper 'The Observer'

[cp]

I've only been half paying attention, but it seems the Liverpool mayoral saga rages on. Can anyone explain to me what the 'real' story is here?

[cp]

Your guess is as good as anybody's tbh.

Though the idea it was all just a(nother) left-bashing exercise looks wide of the mark. Especially if the claims of who was on the actual panel deciding this are correct.

I assure you that is not the case!

The pattern of Starmerite (really, David Evans and Luke Akehurst) witch hunts has become so prevalent I just assumed it was something along those lines. But as you allude to, if it was that there would be clearer indications. It's not like the left of the party is in the mood to pull its punches, or the right of the party feels the need to cover its tracks. Something else is afoot. The oddest part, though, may be the utter absence of any real interrogation by anyone as to what that might be.

[cp]

I think there's multiple reasons why Labour's underperforming right now, some of them outside their control (i.e. the Tories), some of them not (Starmer's announcements). For a reasonable exploration of the latter, Adam Tooze in the Guardian has a good take

[cp]

East and West Ham CLPs have been suspended after accusations of entryism: https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/1370432204808056838

The problem is that Labour is also complaining that the Met is investigating allegations of electoral fraud relating to this, whereas the Met say they looked at it and concluded an investigation wasn't required.

Local parties being places into special measures isn't that unusual (although Newham hasn't had a reputation for being particularly odd - a few Rahmanites but generally much quieter than neighbouring Tower Hamlets.) However, alleging criminality that doesn't stand up to ten minutes of investigation is not a great look.

I think a lot of the criticism Starmer has come in for has been unfair. On the other hand, the appointment of Evans as General Secretary looks more and more like a bad misstep and it's hard to see him holding on the post much longer on this trajectory.

Speaking only for myself, if Starmer sacked Evans (and made a show of it) and replaced him with someone with solid left/Corbyn credentials, I'd be much more inclined to support his leadership of the party. It's one thing no longer have the top spot, it's quite another to be denied any seat at the table.

[cp]

We'd all be better off if people ignored these glorified gossip columns the Times (and other outlets) produce.

As for Dodds, it seems sort of moot what faction the Shadow Chancellor comes from so long as the leader(ship) is going to be so timid when it comes to policy.

[cp]

I'm aware I do this every weekend but there's yet more briefing in the Times against Keir. A favourite line of mine...

''One shadow minister complained that 'it can sometimes feel like we're his paralegals', while another said of his team: 'they think they understand the red wall, when really all they understand is Westminster game-playing and a couple of postcodes in Camden.''

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a-year-on-keir-starmer-is-feeling-the-strain-s5scj8mnm

If you believe the above why on earth are you on the frontbench? A bit ironic to complain about Westminster game playing while providing an off the record quote to the Times... at least we don't get 'senior labour source' anymore.

I'm aware it's rather ironic as I'm probably at the same stage that many on the left were after the constant sniping (and this is a lot more low level) but I really don't understand the strategy of these people?

If Keir gets hit by a bus do they really think there is someone from their faction in the PLP who can A.) Win the Leadership B.) Outperform Keir

The Labour party really does make my head hurt at times- there was a great quote saying that Keir needed someone like Karie Murphy (Corbyns former chief of staff) who was praised as 'tough' in said quote- when Labour MPs spent years saying she was awful, was ruining the party & was the reason we were doing so badly?

The Harold Wilson quote about the coach really was true wasn't it...

Starmer getting a snippy review in an off the record gossip column from a hostile paper is in no way the 'same stage' as successfully facing down a pointless petulant leadership coup. The fact that Starmer's hacks are so thin-skinned about this sort of gentle ribbing is, if anything, indicative of just how much less political nous they possess than they think they do. After all, we're supposed to be 20 points ahead, right?

To answer your question, Clive Lewis would be a great leader for the party: properly on the left, great personal history, and unbeholden to the New Labour ghouls Starmer seems to love. I'd also love Zarah Sultana, but she's 10 years too young to be taken seriously as a leadership candidate (condescending though that prejudice is).

[cp]

The interesting thing about all this tittle-tattle - and it is about the only interesting thing - is how boilerplate it is. Change a few words here and there (and honestly it really only is a few) and we have comments of a sort that have been aimed at every Labour leader since Gaitskell, with the partial exception of Blair at his zenith. I have to laugh at the large number that fit into the 'doesn't understand Real Politics and isn't enough of an absolute bastard' category of 'criticism', if that is the correct word. What a thoroughly bizarre attitude, what a way to tell on yourself.

It is telling, isn't it? It's also a cliché, though - sort of like the statements about 'adults in the room' or 'being serious about wanting to win power' - so I wonder if it's just something people say because they've got the proverbial microphone in front of them and they feel obliged to sound canny and wise.

[cp]

Obvious caveat that as a rightwinger I am no expert on the "once great movement of yours" but I genuinely think Starmer is doing as good a job as can be expected.

Yes Starmer's team has made a couple of unforced errors but have any of them really cut through to the electorate?  Plus it's not like the Tories are the Wizards of Politics either - just look at all the famous U-turns!  Furthermore I think that unlike Labour's the Tories' flubs have actually cut through.

My next point is that with the election so far away it doesn't really matter if Labour isn't "20 points ahead" right now.  Over the next 3 years the Conservatives are bound to make some ludicrous mistakes (it's kinda our thing) and Labour will inevitably take the lead at some point.

Starmer is accused of being "boring" and not sitting on the fence on issues.  Now this is definitely true.  But so what?  The public don't really mind "boring" politicians.  Furthermore on the "culture war" issues the public tends to favour the right's point of view so sitting on the fence is probably better than doubling down on an unpopular opinion.  This is especially the case for issues such as the while trans thing - the average person are way more transphobic/sensible (delete as appropriate) than they would admit.  This also applies to the recent policing saga.  Polling actually showed that the public supported the actions of the police towards the protesting women!!  The same goes for the Bill (of Kill the Bill fame).  The public support it so the best poor Keir can do is triangulate.  It's the least bad option for him so I don't think he should be blamed for taking it.

An aside to the above but I think Keir's "progressive patriotism" is something that could be quite popular if Labour can convince people that it is sincere.

Lastly oppositions don't tend to pull ahead in the polls within a year of electoral defeat.  Granted we are actually in the second year but the pandemic has kind of screwed the model somewhat.

That was long and I imagine I'm probably preaching to the converted but I really, honestly and truly think that Starmer is doing just fine and doesn't really need to change anything.  Screw the Times.

How about you start with your account?

[cp]

Who is the most likely alternative leader if Starmer's "leadership" proves untenable?

1) Rayner
2) a relative "dark horse" currently.

To go back to the above posts, it *won't* be Cooper.

I'd add 3) Rightist continuity candidate (e.g. Wes Streeting)

[cp]

Not sure she'd be a particularly good OL though.

To an extent, it depends on what you expect one to do.

Out of curiosity, what are the aspects of the LOTO job you think Rayner would be good/bad at?

[cp]

So . . . anyone care to guess what's going on in Starmer's head right about now?

I suspect he's crestfallen. The mountain he's been saying the party has to climb has just gotten a little taller and a little steeper. It's only a year into his leadership, but having made such a show of making a clean break with Corbyn and the vision of the party he represented, such a conspicuous absence of progress* is at the very least embarrassing; at worst, it's a sign he's the wrong man at the wrong time in the wrong party.

*As all the results aren't in yet, there could be better news that appears in the next few days, but even greenest of shoots will not distract from the heavy losses seen so far.

[cp]

One of the worse decisions in the latter Corbyn era was the botched effort to get rid of Tom Watson without any real planning when everyone was feeling rather emotional- this move is even more idiotic than that and poses serious questions about what on earth is going on...

So much for "I take full responsibility"...

I did like Starmer when he was elected but I think it's really starting to seem that he isn't up for the huge task of rehabilitating Labour right now.

At the risk of seeming overly cynical, I don't think Starmer (or, more accurately, his advisory team) is interested in rehabilitating Labour right now. He's interesting in purging it of what he sees as its 'problem'.

[cp]

A classic curate's egg from him.

(though, it has to be said, still showing more insight than all his media/party stans put together)

Blair's a slicker communicator than most people in general - that's basically the entire reason for his political success - so I'm not surprised he gives a better account of himself than his inferior acolytes.

Can't say I'm impressed with the message, though. It's basically the same shtick that's he's been spouting for 30 years: (neo)liberalism can win, socialism can't; the world is changing, the strong will adapt and the weak will be left behind*; marginalized people are politically expendable/electoral dead weight. It would be less risible if he didn't invoke JK Rowling as an example of a person the Labour Party shouldn't be picking fights with ('defending transphobic billionaires' will make such a catchy election slogan).


*You'd think that the past 6 years of political tumult would have made the high priests of meritocratic technocracy rethink the wisdom of shrugging their shoulders about people getting 'left behind'. Look what happened when they got organized/incited!

[cp]

Pretty good rebuttal to Blair's self-serving missive

[cp]

Came here to post that

Starmer has given an interview to the new entity which is called Progressive Britain.  It's boring and full of cliché.

Also Burnham has an interview in the Observer this am which is mildly interesting although he says nothing in particular that we didn't know already.

I thought it was relatively newsworthy as he very heavily hints towards running for a Westminster seat in 2023/2034- as much as I like Andy (I voted for him in 2015) it does smell of fighting the last battle to pick him after we lose an election!

Yup, that seems about the right time frame for the run up to the next Labour turn in office ...

[cp]

So the inevitable question.

What happens to Starmer if Labor loses this next by-election? Is he out?

Regrettably, no. As bad of a look as it is, losing by-elections 2-3 years out from the next general election isn't really a sackable offense. Winning them is no predictor of future GE performance either, so it works both ways.

A loss in Batley would exhaust whatever personal goodwill Starmer has left and would provoke more calls for a leadership review in the media at large, but the PLP would likely not change its tune. If the next set of local elections are as bad as this year's was, however ...

[cp]

https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1396057366265843721

If we hit 20 points behind Corbyn gets a knighthood.

[cp]

Pretty much agree with everything there. The unspoken criticism contained within it is that Starmer and most of the Labour right are so intellectually vapid they've uncritically accepted the framing of  reactionary/Tory perspectives, to their continuing detriment. In that sense it's a good primer for understanding why and how the Corbyn/left side of the party has achieved its various successes over the past 6 years (and why it's still hanging around despite the 2019/20 rout).

I'd like to see Edgerton fuse this analysis with his ideas about the impending end of Britain/Britishness as a uniting national community and what that might mean for a Labour Party attempting to refashion itself into a more durable and successful electoral force.

[cp]

If that's the "bad" part of this curate's egg then it must be a pretty impressive good side!

Edgerton's not being dishonest by comparing the 1997 vote share to 1959, and to call it illiterate just seems obtuse as a criticism. It's a stark and compelling illustration of a wider point he's making about how myopic the prevailing media analysis is about Labour's fortunes. Both in the immediate context of recent failures by Corbyn and Starmer and in the broader scope of how Blair's years of misrule are portrayed as a success, the point is that Labour's ability to guide policymaking, shape the political zeitgeist, and represent a broad swath of the electorate - whether from government or opposition - has diminished substantially from the postwar trente glorieuse.

[cp]

What damages most is the continual repetition of what people suspect is probably true. The classic case for our times being Corbyn: the more extravagant attacks never hit home, the more mundane stuff that was actually true or was partially true or looked as it it could be true (we are not discussing the balance today, thanks!) did the sort of damage that water dripping on limestone does over a long period of time.  

I think it's less a matter of the 'truth' of the message and more a matter of the uniformity of the repetition that does the trick. The 'mundane' allegations against Corbyn were no more rooted in truth or rationality than the 'extravagant' ones, it's just that they were repeated ad nauseum and in a highly coordinated manner. For comparison's sake, it's analogous to the nonsense about Hillary Clinton's emails in the US.  

Relevantly, this sort of uniformity requires a degree of institutional capture - or, at any rate, acquiescence - among the media/City/Westminster axis that Labour hasn't been able to attempt since il duce stepped down in 2007.

[cp]

People have been doing the same ad nauseam with Boris Johnson and he isn't as universally reviled as Corbyn. I think it's because has some redeeming features - humourous, intelligent, annoys the right people - which Corbyn didn't have.

Yeah, you're kind of proving my point. The chorus about Johnson has always included those 'redeeming features' - again, irrespective of whether or not they are 'true' - and for that reason he has prospered well beyond what his many shortcomings would have foretold. By contrast, it's not that Corbyn lacked 'redeeming' features. In private, journalists and voters alike invariably commented on how mild-mannered, charming, and empathetic he came off. It's that those aspects of his personality were never accentuated, nevermind repeated ad nauseum, by the people/institutions necessary to effect a public image that was more redeemable.