Yes. But one doesn't have to go too far to arrive at an explanation for this seemingly stupid course of action, especially when Starmer himself laid out his view at the weekend on Andrew Marr. Challenged on his decision to turn inward, he justified himself with the usual cliches: electability, showing the party had changed, yadda yadda. Peter Mandelson put it more plainly. By taking on his party, millions of voters would cheer him on, said our Labour Friend of Jeffrey Epstein. Self-serving rubbish, but is there any provenance? The obvious example is a trip down the memory lane of Blairist mythology. Neil Kinnock's assaults on Militant and the municipal left in the 1980s were necessary to show Labour was electable - though it didn't help his chances when 1987 and 1992 swung around. And then King Tony himself. He publicly picked a fight with the left over the wording of Clause IV and centralised command and control in the leader's office and, apparently, the public lapped it up. Never mind that double digit leads were routine before these "necessary" changes were made.
It would be a mistake to put this intentional misremembering of the past entirely down to the Labour right's illusio - there are two examples from recent political history that, to their minds, demonstrates the importance of ostentatiously tough leadership. Exhibit A is Boris Johnson. Elected in the summer of 2019 and faced with an unruly, divided parliamentary party, he simply threw caution to the wind when it came to taking his challengers on. He understood the only Tory route to electoral victory was by uniting the Leave vote behind him with the promise to get Brexit done. Johnson ruthlessly and in the most showy way possible had to demonstrate how this most untrustworthy of politicians could be trusted with seeing through the referendum result. The theatrics of dying in a ditch rather than revoking Article 50, of closing parliament, saying he would defy the law, sacking Tory grandees. Johnson proved his seriousness of intent and was awarded, while the opposition fragmented and lost voters to the Tories. Decisive leadership on this one question while liberals and remainers tut-tutted through the spectacle won him the big prize.
Exhibit B? Why, it's Jeremy Corbyn. Unfortunately, a negative example. While his leadership of the Labour Party was different to his predecessors, his authority - and why he inspired so many - was moral authority. He exemplified a set of ideas and interests, and so this was a leadership born of consensus. It was also proved fundamentally incompatible with the rotten party bureaucracy and the culture of entitlement among his parliamentary colleagues. There were opportunities to wield the axe through the judicious application of discipline, conference votes, and expulsions but they weren't taken precisely because of Corbyn's adherence to pacifistic, consensual politics. The result saw the Labour right running riot through the organisation, undermining the party in the most scabby and scorched earth ways possible. And the public did notice. Part of the popular antipathy toward Corbyn was precisely this inability to get a handle on his organisation. If he can't unify and lead the Labour Party, how could he be expected to competently manage the country?
The belief is grabbing one's party by the scruff of its neck demonstrates leadership - a trial run, if you like. The Labour right, however, have stripped this entirely of context and made it a precondition of all leaderships forever more. In Starmer's case, it's unlikely squeaking through his change to how MPs gate keep the next leader would have impressed anyone. Ditto putting on the record his opposition to a £15/hour minimum wage. The reason Starmer's standing is poor has to do with his failure to show any kind of political leadership these last 18 months. In his speech, he talked about the horrors visited on Britain's care homes early in the pandemic. A disgusting, appalling scandal he said nothing about at the time. He discussed the failures of Tory pandemic management, while he in turned pulled his punches and refused to challenge Johnson on the fundamentals. Starmer's opposition is proving ineffective and goes unnoticed by those who only look at politics askance because he's done no opposing. The idea Mandelson's "millions of voters" are going to suddenly take notice of Starmer's prioritising of inner party wrangling when Starmer hasn't bothered addressing their concerns and interests is wishful thinking.
Is Starmer going to enjoy a post-conference bump or a dip? In the end, it doesn't matter. His first proper party conference has announced to the world that he's on course to lose the next general election. Only a set of unforeseen circumstances, somehow more spectacular and/or devastating than anything we've seen this last 18 months could possibly turn his fortunes around.
Image Credit
8 comments:
«when Starmer himself laid out his view at the weekend on Andrew Marr. Challenged on his decision to turn inward, he justified himself with the usual cliches: electability»
He is in other words making a big display of being a fervent anti-communist.
The obvious inference is that Mandelson and Starmer have identified the greatest worry that tory voters have: the threat of COMMUNISM!
Therefore the first priority for New Labour is to find some communists and throw them out after some show trial, and it is just very convenient that these can be identified with the "entrysts" from Labour like Corbyn.
A fairly plausible take (and the occasional typo suggests that it was written in a sense of agitation driven by the circumstances). One is tempted to reflect that "the first time tragedy, the second time farce" applies to the sequence of Kinnock and Blair, but Marx never said what would happen if history repeated itself a third time (boredom, probably).
Surely, however, this was all implicit in the campaign to remove Corbyn and install Starmer? In other words, losing the next election is not a curious side-effect of Labour politics, it's the core and essence of what the party is about. Removing intellectual content and political debate from the party is, in fact, at the heart of modern politics.
In my view, this is because the people who own the politicians do not like democracy and do what they can to subvert it. But, of course, that's a conspiracy theory, isn't it?
«The idea Mandelson's "millions of voters" are going to suddenly take notice of Starmer's prioritising of inner party wrangling when Starmer hasn't bothered addressing their concerns and interests is wishful thinking.»
That idea is actually quite right: millions of tory voters will “take notice” of Starmer's fervent "anti-communism", and probably they would prefer Starmer to Johnson as leader of the governing tory party (they would most likely prefer Sunak to Starmer though).
But that won't change their vote, because they already have an "anti-communist" party to vote for, a party that is in government and successfully “addressing their concerns and interests” by still delivering massive upward redistribution to them from the lower classes via the property and share markets. Even the editorial opinion of "The Guardian" has figured that out:
“Labour risks ending up being Conservative-lite on the economy and Conservative-lite on its principles. It would be a mistake for him to think voters just want healthier versions of Tory policies. Labour’s “diet Johnson-ism” would pale in comparison to the real thing.”
«more spectacular and/or devastating than anything we've seen this last 18 months»
Perhaps Mandelson's friends at the BoE/Treasury/City are telling him that they won't be able to pump up property prices for Johnson for much longer, so when there is a crash it is important to have a thatcherite alternative in New Labour like in the 1990s, to ensure the continuity of thatcherism.
I said previously that if Starmer wants to get elected he needs to treat the electorate with the same contempt that the perennial winners the Tories do.
Saying he will back track on election pledges is a good start.
The media are sort of on his side, apparently he is taking the fight to Boris as he moves us all with his depply personal stories. So the Starmer propaganda machine is starting up, clearly sections of the ruling class think Tory incompetence has finally gone too far! I suspect the bus is already over the cliff edge and heading for terra firma!
Of course for some sections of Great and Fabulous Britain any Labour leader, no matter how Tory they are, will always represent nothing but true horror. So if hard right Labour do win the next election we should find comfort in portion of the population’s horror.
The illusions are with the left, Corbyn and Assange shared one naive illusion, that when faced with the truth people would act, when faced with grotesque criminality, people would be outraged. The fact is that decency is but the icing on the venality. Still you have to admire both men I suppose.
This boy represents decency, this girl ignorance, beware them both but especially the boy!
I’ve realised over the past few months that the best explanation for Starmer is that he is just woefully bad at politics—to the point where he doesn’t seem to have a political instinct in his body. Of course, that might have been his attraction to a number of his backers.
«the best explanation for Starmer is that he is just woefully bad at politics»
Perhaps if he tried to do "politics", but instead he is just following the "centrist" script quite faithfully, and that script includes the claim that "politics" is pointless, because “we are all thatcherites now”, and therefore only managerialism matters to the “aspirational voters who shop at John Lewis and Waitrose”. He is pushing the right-wing politics of "there is no need for politics".
And "politics", intended as arguing the toss about personality, presentation, style, as "The Guardian" and various "leftoids" do, indeed does not matter much: most voters vote their wallets, that is their class interests, the "petit bourgeois" especially crudely.
«when faced with the truth people would act, when faced with grotesque criminality, people would be outraged.»
The biggest example we have seen is the handling of the epidemic:
* Countries whose governments implemented well test-trace-isolate had death rates 100 times lower than England and most other "Atlantic Alliance" countries that chose "fatalistic liberalism”.
* Countries whose governments chose a mixed system had death rates 10 times lower.
* The press and the opposition in England and most "Atlantic Alliance" countries somehow failed to make this a prominent issue, even if the difference was occasionally mentioned in obscure articles here and there.
* Since 99% of voters survived and 90% kept their jobs, they could care less about the losers, after the fact.
«The fact is that decency is but the icing on the venality.»
That is a very good expression that I shall use in the future, but what you call “venality” should be perhaps called "politics", and a particular type of short-termist, narrow-minded politics. It is part of the historic task of the "left" as a movement to show the people that "politics" can be also about more enlightened longer term interests.
«doesn’t seem to have a political instinct in his body»
As to the posturing/style/attitude notion of "politics", one of my favourite quotes:
“Attended a gathering with Ann Widdecombe last night. All only of historic interest but for one comment.
To get on in politics you have to have a political personality and the best way to acquire that according to the ladder climbers is to get on Have I got News for You.. That is the word from Widdicombe.”
Post a Comment