Tuesday, 11 February 2025

The Politics of Noticing

Comrades on the left call it the Great Noticing. This is where observations and arguments made in public fora by absolutely awful beyond-the-pale left wingers and are customarily ignored (if not denounced as tinfoil hattery) by the great and the good of sensible, grown up politics. Yet there comes a point when something cannot be blanked any longer. The crisis of the Conservatives and the confessions of right wing Labour factionalists are a couple of recent examples. One where the reality became too obvious to deny and now a cottage industry has sprung up about the long-term problems of the Tories, and another when the players themselves candidly admitted to all the things they were denying with straight faces a few years ago. Naturally, the left gets no credit for being right on these things.

Another noticing is happening right now. Unsurprisingly, the over-hyping of Nigel Farage from all quarters of pundit opinion has helped put Reform in the lead in several polls. And now commentators from The Sun to mainstream political science are writing about how Keir Starmer's strategy is undermining the Labour Party.

Take Rob Ford for example. Discussing the rise of Reform, he notes that for Labour "wooing back Reform voters with red meat on Farage’s favourite issues is a strategy with low prospects of success and high risks." And what is the nature of this risk? "A populist Labour campaign for Reform votes may be the last straw for many in this socially liberal, viscerally anti-Farage group, putting at risk hundreds of marginal seats where Reform is out of the running, but where Labour needs a united progressive front to prevail next time." At the risk of tooting the old horn, the problem Rob identifies was something I identified in a 2021 special issue of Political Quarterly. A more respectable organ where polite opinion is concerned than this corner of the internet. But I'm not pretending originality. Plenty of other left wingers were making similar arguments at the time.

The question then is why now? Why are sections of establishment opinion not only waking up to Labour's counter-productive positions, but are fretting about it? On the one hand there is the government's refusal to do much to forestall the crises in state institutions. The utter indifference Labour has shown universities has become emblematic of their high-handed neglect, as they hide a lack of leadership behind vague and indefinite reviews. As the professional base of Starmerism was divided going into the election and largely stayed on board to see the Tories defeated, this is an exasperation in frustration. But more than that, Donald Trump is giving a chaotic lesson in what could be visited on the British state if a Reform/Tory coalition won office in 2028/29. Not just a flagrant disregard of the law, but the tearing up of state institutions, NGOs, the charitable sector, environmental protections and sustainable energy projects, and an evisceration of whole swathes of the economy present themselves as a real possibility. It appears significant sections of establishment opinion have learned the lessons of the Democrats' complacently dismal campaign, understand how Joe Biden's administration paved the way for Trump, what that could mean for their future and are - rightly - worried that Starmer's government is on an identical path.

This isn't to say this layer ae champing at the bit for radical solutions to deep seated problems. But they want to see the government prioritising the fixing of institutions, putting money in people's pockets, and going for a sensible economic strategy instead of prioritising the same old interests. More reforming zeal, less scapegoating of people desperate enough to brave the Channel in a dinghy in the winter. Starmerism, if it means anything, was for this layer a take over of the state by the state. In other words, professionals, experts, and technocrats motivated by public service were in charge at last. Tackling problems and presenting solutions was their jam - in marked contrast to the cynical, reckless mess that preceded them. This Labour government therefore comes as a shocking disappointment, best typified by Starmer's defence of the institutionalised acceptance of bungs.

If Labour carries on as they are doing, it won't just be the bulk of the working class that will be deserting the party, the Prime Minister's core constituency will do too. Which makes the nightmare outcome they fear the most more likely. And the blame for this would lie entirely at the feet of Starmer and his lieutenants.

Image Credit

6 comments:

Ken said...

It's 'beyond the pale', not 'beyond the pail'. FFS, comrade!

Phil said...

Argh! It's one of those annoying ticks I cannot shake off!

Rob Ford said...

Rather unfair Phil - I have been writing about risks to Starmer and Labour from progressive disaffection since at least 2022, and such risks were a major theme of the articles I wrote during the 2024 GE campaign and immediately after the result. Thread here with more: https://bsky.app/profile/robfordmancs.bsky.social/post/3lhxyjwub2c2a

Kamo said...

Phil, your own analysis concludes Starmer won the election on the basis of Labour not being the Tories, which leaves us with a Gov't that's not sure what it wants to be and is doing some weird shit as a result. Some of this is down to individuals; Starmer is at root an activist lawyer, a profession that often runs against the national interest; one that is about bending procedure to a desired* outcome rather than what is for the general good. But there is a wider problem of not having a coherent programme that benefits the general citizenry, which is not the same as what 'progressives' may want or what technocrats think is for the greater good.

* the desired outcome may be very undesirable for the general population.

Martin said...

A question I find myself pondering is how did Starmer manage to fool so many people into thinking he was a competent leader? He seems utterly out of his depth and, to be frank, clueless. It isn't clear to me if he and Reeves are both just reading from scripts others have prepared, or if they actually believe and helped devise the 'initiatives' and policies they are putting forward. And I am not sure which is worse.

It should have been obvious that neoliberalism had failed in 2008 when the deregulation of finance and unleashing of the vampire squids of exploitation led the system to the edge of financial collapse. Instead we have staggered on with zombienomics, desperately trying to consume enough living flesh to generate that elusive growth. But, the undead, being not-alive, cannot grow. All they can do is feed off others to defer their decomposition.

Starmer did not notice that the decline all around him was the rotting of the neoliberal corpse. Instead he imagined that it was simply managerial incompetence. So he is pursuing the same policies that killed a properly functioning society, thinking they will revive it. He will do the same, but do it 'better'. He seems bemused by his unpopularity, believing that when he turns things around he will be hailed as the hero he knows he is. But he can't turn anything around because he is plotting the exact same course into the blind alley that the Tories did. And the only thing that will emerge is the hollow-eyed corpse of populo-techno-fascism, which will consume us all.

Anonymous said...

> a coherent programme that benefits the general citizenry, which is not the same as what 'progressives' may want or what technocrats think is for the greater good

Both progressives and technocrats would disagree entirely with that statement, and certainly with no less credibility than Kamo possesses.

And since nobody actually knows how to construct a programme that "benefits the general citizenry" with certainty (that being a fundamentally unsolvable problem)... nobody, other than perhaps his fellow ideologues in whatever specific right wing pigeonhole that he inhabits, is likely to assign Kamo's opinion on the matter any more credence than they would assign to the opinion of a random vagrant.