In politics as in life, there's never a second chance to make a first impression. Starmer's entry into office has teken more than a few tips from Labour governments past. When Gordon Brown got his overdue bite at the prime ministerial cherry, up until autumn 2007's election that never was, he offered the impression of an administration firmly in control and rolling its sleeves up. At the outset was the gimmick of the government of all the talents, with appointments of the likes of the (thankfully these days, anonymous) Digby Jones to demonstrate Brown's non-partisan credentials. Starmer has done exactly the same, as per his big tent instincts (at least where bourgeois politics are concerned). Expertise is affirmed with the appointments of Patrick Vallance to the science brief and James Timpson to look after prisons. Employing Richard Mermer KC and dumping Emily Thornberry as Attorney General was unexpected (and, to be honest, funny). Notable is the fact Mermer has been very critical of Israel's continuing massacre and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the occupied territories. The turn to expertise has carried through with appointing Diana Johnson and Stephen Timms, select committee chairs for the Home Office and DWP, to these respective departments. And apart from Thornberry, most shadow cabinet members are carrying the brief they had in opposition.
And then we have the doing. On day one, the Rwanda scheme was scrapped. Over the rest of the week announcements were made on early prison release (to relieve the pressure on a creaking system), housing targets were announced, schemes caught in NIMBY development hell green lit, the National Wealth Fund set up, a bollocking of the water companies administered, the meeting of the leaders in the nations and the regions, cancellation of North Sea oil and gas exploration, binning the onshore wind ban, and hints about a packed King's speech. Starmer's even going to make the Commons sit on Fridays to get the legislation through. Leaving aside the content, this gives the impression of a government in a hurry, but also one relatively sensitive to liberal sympathies. For Starmer's base, hitherto divided by his lacklustre period in opposition, this goes some way to winning the doubters over. Especially compared to Sunak's do-nothing government, which exacerbated the Tories' defeat.
What Starmer is building is the vibe economy of his government. Though not the most emotional of politicians, what he has become is a master of the nod and the gesture. The manifesto and his vision speeches are exercises in political impressionism. With a cabinet of politicians from working class backgrounds epitomising the social mobility Starmer wants jump starting, announcing lots of things, being seen hanging out with world leaders, for those who want to believe that Starmerism means hope and that we'll see tangible improvements. The week's activities are trails of breadcrumbs bridging the gap between rudimentary first steps and the excitable imaginaries of the professional/managerial base. Imaginaries in which new career opportunities and the chance of contributing to a technocratic common good open up before them.
As real economies systematically produce winners and losers, constructing a vibes economy needs its negatives as well. The cruel two child cap on child benefit remains not as a political necessity, but because Starmer and Rachel Reeves have decided it's the totem of their "tough choices" mantra. The reaffirmation of military aid to Ukraine and the ritual condemnation of Russian atrocities, while turning a blind eye to Israel's crimes is the bipartisan foreign-policy-as-usual we've seen since Starmer became Labour leader. The appearance of Wes Streeting, his career unshaken by a near death election experience, has been nodding and winking at private health interests by launching an NHS review under Lord Ara Darzi - another expert (a pioneer in keyhole surgery) but also an employee of BUPA. And then there is his intention to implement a ban on puberty blockers for young trans people, justified by the flawed Cass review. This plays to the bigotries of too many Labour MPs, centrist media commentators, and a certain billionaire that has given the party millions in the past. Liz Kendall has announced her "those who can work should work" approach to dealing with unemployment. And the re-engagement of Alan Milburn and the return to government of Jacqui Smith - who in recent years is better known for a serious NHS governance failure - is a message to those sections of capital that did well out of state contracts under New Labour that they can expect more of the same. All trying to cohere elite support and interest in the Starmer project.
As we're still in early days, the question remains about how much of the week's busywork translates into real improvements in institutional efficacy, economic growth, a better environment, and rising living standards. But for the time being that doesn't matter. Labour's outriders have ammunition they can use when sallying forth to defend their government, and for those who look at politics askance Starmer and the cabinet are looking busier than background scenes of The West Wing. Never mind the real economy, the vibes economy under the new government isn't just working, it's booming.
Image Credit
2 comments:
Thank you for this: I thought I wasn't the only one that suspected so much of this first week was centrists and liberals squeeing over a group of politicians who were simply settling into their new jobs and doing 'busywork' while simultaneously yelling 'They've only been in power a week!' at any critics. Very much a case of them responding to tone rather than content while admiring how Starmer looks better/more 'prime ministerial' in a suit than Sunak or Johnson.
I thought this op-ed from Starmer in the Guardian was in a similar vein: as an academic you might have a similar missive @allstaff from a new manager or VC. But the comments...jeez: Swifties have nothing on this level of fan-worship alongside huge levels of projection and wishful thinking. They 'want to believe' so very, very hard.
> They 'want to believe' so very, very hard.
That'll be the good-cop-bad-cop dynamic at work.
It's not so much a political strategy (for any class) as it is a pattern; a low energy state for bipolar electoral systems.
Until the autocratic takeover eventually arrives.
Post a Comment