I agree entirely. The alarm bells began ringing with the winter fuel fiasco. But the level of spite directed at Starmer seems absurd compared to the corruption of Johnson who deserved his defenestration more than any recent politician I can recall.
I'll read this in a bit, but I agree with your headline. Labour were elected on a strapline of "change". Now, I know they have made changes, but not the big ones that affect everyone. No wealth tax on billionaires. No rent cap to stop greedy landlords. No tax reforms to require full payment of taxes by everyone rather than use of offshore banking and tax havens. No immediate renationalisation of utilities. No capping of CEO pay and banning of bonuses. No reining in of the right wing shouty mob.
Now I may be a lone voice bleating into the void on that list of the changes I had hoped to see. But to me, Labour are chasing a vote which will never happen. They have gone all Tory lite on us. When many of us had our entire career wrecked by the 90s Thatcher recession. The greed is good mentality can be killed off, and the ridiculously wealthy can be reined in. It needs regulation and clear policy.
Many centrists and every socialist I've read posts from recently feel politically homeless. They're not after a complete French revolution style of revolt, but they would like consequences for actions, fair taxation and a return to public ownership of our national assets.
Condequences may happen sooner than expected though.
Starmer was lost to me when he said it was acceptable to remove food and water from the Palestinian people. His cruel naivety and disregard for public opinion sums him up. I think he should go but who replaces him? We appear to have gone from bad to worse for many years.
Technocrats are are nothing without a coherent set of social / political values to frame their goals and develop policy.
In politics that necessitates building a broad base of party membership that whilst adhering to principles is capable of developing policies which are fit for purpose. In the case of Labour as it stands the scorched earth created by McSweeney and co. suppressing dissent made that impossible.
To encourage and support diversity internally takes courage and skill. Even more so to present the results to the public. Who are more likely to accept them if they are value coherent.
Starmer is incapable of that sort of political activity. He is weak when it comes to exploitation by capital eg utility companies or private health.
And even weaker on making the case for immigration. Which in turn has lead to Mahmood who would fit easily into a right wing government in her current post.
Lastly he is weak because he has stripped the PLP of an obvious set of up and coming replacements for the top jobs inc. his own. And that in a closed system is a grievous failure.
None of those things will change because Starmer doesn’t have the ability to make them nor have the capacity to change himself.
So he must go. Leaving a vacuum of his own making which will be filled by a tumultuous influx of chaos.
I absolutely agree. I had such high hopes when Labour were elected, but advisors decided to play catch-up with Reform to attract their voters. They are never going to do that and instead have alienated their reasonable-thinking voters. Keir Starmer comes across as a shell with no solid core who panders to the faction who shouts loudest.
I'm old enough to remember John Smith and think of what might have been. He was a man who stood on solid ground.
I agree 100% both with your disagnosis of where Labour went wrong, and your sympathy that this happened to a decent man.
That said, the case for Starmer being removed is very simple - Labour are going to lose the next election. Changing a leader might not turn around the fortunes, but there is nothing to lose by taking that risk. (See Canada for a recent example of how a leadership change utterly transformed the party's fortunes.)
I don’t know, and I am nowhere near as informed as you but what I see is a country divided and a media who enjoy that. How well could anyone function in a job if everything they do is unrelentingly and emotionally criticised? Take the winter fuel allowance, did we have serious investigative journalism looking at the benefits but asking about the losers? No we had sobbing grannies wheeled out and headlines about freezing pensioners. I just don’t think he stood a chance, and I can’t see a replacement doing any better in this current climate.
You're suggesting there were no changes Starmer could have made that wouldn't have been equally disastrous.
The fact that he's managed to change other things without kicking over a hornets' nest says that's not true.
That particular change was always going to be a disaster - an easy win for the opposition & for his enemies in the media. He (or his advisors) should have known that, although of course it's easy to be clever backwards.
There are no changes he has made that have received positive publicity on a par with the negative for some changes. And when he was beginning to get accolades for his stance on Iran suddenly a new load of revelations on Mandelson came to light. It is my belief he is unpopular because we are continually told he is unpopular.
I wanted grown up politics but we are far from that. I just find myself frustrated and very very disappointed not just in Starmer but in Labour on the whole.
I agree Bear. In fact ditching Starmer leads to time wasted electing another leader (and another, and another...) while Reform make hay. I blame all these green ( small g) Labour MPs who were elected 2 and a half years ago who have totally failed to understand that the catastrophe that was the Tories doesn't get fixed instantly. Also which leading members of the government were talking to them and telling them it would all take time? If they had been encouraged to talk up Labour policies to their constituents, faith might not have dissipated so much. None of this of course would have been so bad if it weren't for the right wing press who still hold so much power.
I honestly believe that if Starmer goes, Reform will win the next election - and it will be too late for Labour to learn the hard lessons of effective politics.
Your paragraph fifth from the end starting "Competent government. Seriously planning." etc states exactly what we have every expectation of receiving when we vote in a particular govt (I didn't vote for Labour, having researched Starmer's background thoroughly ). But how can this happen when the real agenda of the govt, with the Fabian overlords pulling the strings, is hidden from the majority of voters? Much of the Reform surge (I didn't vote for them either - God help us!) comes in areas where Brexit was the flavour of the day, then Starmer states yesterday that we must put ourselves back in the heart of Europe. He has the political instincts of a gnat but I agree that he shouldn't go now, not until there is another 'leader' who can start to deliver competent govt and serious planning for the country and its its people.
Perfectly articulated Bear. Almost exactly chimes and rhymes with how I feel. Unfortunately, Starmer will not be listening to you or me, and is not going to change. Above all it is his immigration policy rhetoric led by the dreadful Mahmood that I find bewildering. Much as I hate to say it, he has to go, sooner rather than later, as soon as someone better can take over. Therein lies the problem.
A considered analysis once again. With which I agree. It is sad that we do not appear to have anyone in the movement with this level of thought. If they are out there, the time is now to step forward.
We do seem to be at that stage for a change of manager to avoid relegation.
Once again, you are spot on with your analysis. And I totally agree with you on both the Angela Rayner matter (funny how Rachel Reeves managed to survive a very similar situation) and Andy Burnham. They both could have been a great asset to Starmer, being the closest thing the party has to traditional Labour values, but somehow I do believe that he is a bit of an “I’m in control”freak and strong people frighten him off in case they upset his “can I out-reform Reform” agenda.
You are so right. And it’s so disappointing. I’m “north of the border” and I’ve noticed with interest that Stephen Flynn has won an MSP seat. Quite obviously moving to be the next first minister. No fanfare, no angst, just moving the best people you have into position. Labour should have done that with Burnham. This country deserves better than fragile egos.
I agree entirely. The alarm bells began ringing with the winter fuel fiasco. But the level of spite directed at Starmer seems absurd compared to the corruption of Johnson who deserved his defenestration more than any recent politician I can recall.
I'll read this in a bit, but I agree with your headline. Labour were elected on a strapline of "change". Now, I know they have made changes, but not the big ones that affect everyone. No wealth tax on billionaires. No rent cap to stop greedy landlords. No tax reforms to require full payment of taxes by everyone rather than use of offshore banking and tax havens. No immediate renationalisation of utilities. No capping of CEO pay and banning of bonuses. No reining in of the right wing shouty mob.
Now I may be a lone voice bleating into the void on that list of the changes I had hoped to see. But to me, Labour are chasing a vote which will never happen. They have gone all Tory lite on us. When many of us had our entire career wrecked by the 90s Thatcher recession. The greed is good mentality can be killed off, and the ridiculously wealthy can be reined in. It needs regulation and clear policy.
Many centrists and every socialist I've read posts from recently feel politically homeless. They're not after a complete French revolution style of revolt, but they would like consequences for actions, fair taxation and a return to public ownership of our national assets.
Condequences may happen sooner than expected though.
We were promised change. Not Reform.
Excellent as always!
Starmer was lost to me when he said it was acceptable to remove food and water from the Palestinian people. His cruel naivety and disregard for public opinion sums him up. I think he should go but who replaces him? We appear to have gone from bad to worse for many years.
100%
On both statements.
He’s been uninspiring and exceptionally disappointing.
He’s needed the proverbial kick and now sort stuff out.
What the country doesn’t need is weeks of a bolleaux fight over the position. There’s a job to be done.
Bear. Greetings.
Technocrats are are nothing without a coherent set of social / political values to frame their goals and develop policy.
In politics that necessitates building a broad base of party membership that whilst adhering to principles is capable of developing policies which are fit for purpose. In the case of Labour as it stands the scorched earth created by McSweeney and co. suppressing dissent made that impossible.
To encourage and support diversity internally takes courage and skill. Even more so to present the results to the public. Who are more likely to accept them if they are value coherent.
Starmer is incapable of that sort of political activity. He is weak when it comes to exploitation by capital eg utility companies or private health.
And even weaker on making the case for immigration. Which in turn has lead to Mahmood who would fit easily into a right wing government in her current post.
Lastly he is weak because he has stripped the PLP of an obvious set of up and coming replacements for the top jobs inc. his own. And that in a closed system is a grievous failure.
None of those things will change because Starmer doesn’t have the ability to make them nor have the capacity to change himself.
So he must go. Leaving a vacuum of his own making which will be filled by a tumultuous influx of chaos.
May the gods save us all.
100% agree with this and love your analogies!
I absolutely agree. I had such high hopes when Labour were elected, but advisors decided to play catch-up with Reform to attract their voters. They are never going to do that and instead have alienated their reasonable-thinking voters. Keir Starmer comes across as a shell with no solid core who panders to the faction who shouts loudest.
I'm old enough to remember John Smith and think of what might have been. He was a man who stood on solid ground.
I agree 100% both with your disagnosis of where Labour went wrong, and your sympathy that this happened to a decent man.
That said, the case for Starmer being removed is very simple - Labour are going to lose the next election. Changing a leader might not turn around the fortunes, but there is nothing to lose by taking that risk. (See Canada for a recent example of how a leadership change utterly transformed the party's fortunes.)
I don’t know, and I am nowhere near as informed as you but what I see is a country divided and a media who enjoy that. How well could anyone function in a job if everything they do is unrelentingly and emotionally criticised? Take the winter fuel allowance, did we have serious investigative journalism looking at the benefits but asking about the losers? No we had sobbing grannies wheeled out and headlines about freezing pensioners. I just don’t think he stood a chance, and I can’t see a replacement doing any better in this current climate.
That is exactly why he should not have gone within a country mile of making that particular change so early in his government.
The problems were entirely predictable, and it was never going to be a runner.
Someone who understands "the way things happen round here" would have known that.
It was a mistake of Truss-like proportions.
It is tempting to wonder who paid McSweeney to push it - was he in fact trying to make it impossible for Labour to get a second term?
Then surely it was impossible to make any change? The media seems to run this country on hate and division.
You're suggesting there were no changes Starmer could have made that wouldn't have been equally disastrous.
The fact that he's managed to change other things without kicking over a hornets' nest says that's not true.
That particular change was always going to be a disaster - an easy win for the opposition & for his enemies in the media. He (or his advisors) should have known that, although of course it's easy to be clever backwards.
There are no changes he has made that have received positive publicity on a par with the negative for some changes. And when he was beginning to get accolades for his stance on Iran suddenly a new load of revelations on Mandelson came to light. It is my belief he is unpopular because we are continually told he is unpopular.
I wanted grown up politics but we are far from that. I just find myself frustrated and very very disappointed not just in Starmer but in Labour on the whole.
I agree Bear. In fact ditching Starmer leads to time wasted electing another leader (and another, and another...) while Reform make hay. I blame all these green ( small g) Labour MPs who were elected 2 and a half years ago who have totally failed to understand that the catastrophe that was the Tories doesn't get fixed instantly. Also which leading members of the government were talking to them and telling them it would all take time? If they had been encouraged to talk up Labour policies to their constituents, faith might not have dissipated so much. None of this of course would have been so bad if it weren't for the right wing press who still hold so much power.
I honestly believe that if Starmer goes, Reform will win the next election - and it will be too late for Labour to learn the hard lessons of effective politics.
Your paragraph fifth from the end starting "Competent government. Seriously planning." etc states exactly what we have every expectation of receiving when we vote in a particular govt (I didn't vote for Labour, having researched Starmer's background thoroughly ). But how can this happen when the real agenda of the govt, with the Fabian overlords pulling the strings, is hidden from the majority of voters? Much of the Reform surge (I didn't vote for them either - God help us!) comes in areas where Brexit was the flavour of the day, then Starmer states yesterday that we must put ourselves back in the heart of Europe. He has the political instincts of a gnat but I agree that he shouldn't go now, not until there is another 'leader' who can start to deliver competent govt and serious planning for the country and its its people.
Perfectly articulated Bear. Almost exactly chimes and rhymes with how I feel. Unfortunately, Starmer will not be listening to you or me, and is not going to change. Above all it is his immigration policy rhetoric led by the dreadful Mahmood that I find bewildering. Much as I hate to say it, he has to go, sooner rather than later, as soon as someone better can take over. Therein lies the problem.
A considered analysis once again. With which I agree. It is sad that we do not appear to have anyone in the movement with this level of thought. If they are out there, the time is now to step forward.
We do seem to be at that stage for a change of manager to avoid relegation.
Once again, you are spot on with your analysis. And I totally agree with you on both the Angela Rayner matter (funny how Rachel Reeves managed to survive a very similar situation) and Andy Burnham. They both could have been a great asset to Starmer, being the closest thing the party has to traditional Labour values, but somehow I do believe that he is a bit of an “I’m in control”freak and strong people frighten him off in case they upset his “can I out-reform Reform” agenda.
You are so right. And it’s so disappointing. I’m “north of the border” and I’ve noticed with interest that Stephen Flynn has won an MSP seat. Quite obviously moving to be the next first minister. No fanfare, no angst, just moving the best people you have into position. Labour should have done that with Burnham. This country deserves better than fragile egos.