Despite the hype surrounding Gray, her appointment did not live up to its stellar billing. She was there because, like Starmer, she's a state functionary through and through. She inspired the confidence of the apparat. It telegraphed that, finally, the professionals, the "grown ups", the adults-in-the-room were in charge and the age of overconfident amateurs and chaos agents was done. Let efficient government, smooth government commence with the take over of the state by the state. But things haven't gone that way. If anything, for a new government its disarray has often recalled an administration on its last legs.
Not all of this can be laid at Gray's door. She didn't petition Rachel Reeves to stop Winter Fuel Payments or talk up "the pain" scheduled in the Autumn budget to the point that confidence in the UK economy was severely knocked. And despite the complaints about "Downing Street comms", often repeated from unattributed sources by the New Statesman podcast, freebiegate wasn't a disaster because of inept spinning. It has damaged Labour's credibility and forced Starmer's favourability rating into a nosedive because the Prime Minister won't countenance surrendering the perks of office. Polishing a turd is a messy business. It goes everywhere and makes everything it sticks to stink.
That isn't to say Gray's case is a spotless one. She tried forcing the cadre of incoming spads to accept lower salaries than their Tory predecessors and, in some cases, what they were receiving in opposition. To their complaints she turned a tin ear, forcing an unlikely unionisation effort among a sliver of party staff for whom the words 'solidarity' and 'collectivism' are normally entries in the dictionary. Hence the wave of hostile briefings against her, including the barb that Gray is the only pensioner to have done well out of the Labour government. Not useful to have the operation turning on itself after the gentlest application of media pressure. There are some other wonkish complaints about not having proper transition plans. But, the greatest sin of all was that she did not appreciate that her job was a political one. According to an, again unattributed conversation this time relayed by Sienna Rodgers, an insider said "I think fundamentally Sue Gray is a person with no politics or political experience/nous doing a job that has become very political. And in Morgan [McSweeney] she's got an enemy who is essentially just much better at politics than her."
This is true enough, but who put her there in the first place? It was clueless Keir that made the call. Starmer had enough sense to trust his fortunes to Sweeney during the leadership election and in the factional battles and purges since. But as office approached it appears the understanding that he required a political hatchet man fell out of his head. Perhaps he's made the mistake of snorting his own vapours, imagining that he could do a government and a politics that "treads lightly" on the British people. That once in office, like Macron across the Channel he could pretend to be a Prime Minister that operates above politics. In such a world there is a use for a Sue Gray, but not one for a Morgan McSweeney. Which was why he was initially frozen out. However, Gray's ineptitude and the briefing operation run by camp McSweeney has knocked Starmer off his cloud and brought him down face-to-face with the grubby doings of politics. Albeit pulled off in such a way that the boss doesn't experience it as a humbling. By pinning the blame of everything from freebies to Lord Alli's Downing Street pass to staffing issues and poor spinning on Gray, Starmer was presented with a fait accompli. This was topped off by Gray's decision to fall on her sword for the good of the government. A masterpiece of manipulation for those who get excited by such things.
What now? With McSweeney's people in charge one might expect a more disciplined Downing Street. The impression of a shambles will quickly be replaced by message discipline and rebuttal. Anything that comes out of Number 10 now, as per the days of Dominic Cummings, does so with McSweeney's blessing. That might seem limiting as plausible deniability for "leaks" is reduced, but it enables the PLP to get a read on where their (apparently uncommunicative) leader is going, as well as signalling who's on the up and who's on the way out. Handy for the legions of career-minded MPs. Politically, however, nothing has changed. The opportunity to waste the historic opportunity Labour has remains on track, but that's not what's important. The Labour right's backroom apparatchiks get the goodies they're entitled to, and McSweeney gets to feed his legend - one that should set him up for life. Grown ups, eh?
Image Credit
5 comments:
Can McSweeney exist without finding someone to factionalise against? Corbyn was replaced by Gray as the target of his intrigues. Who can he turn on next? If he follows the Cummings model it could be Starmer. It is a Jacobean tragedy playing out infront of us. The Duchess of Malfi has been despatched but there is still space on the stage for more bloodletting.
«he was there because, like Starmer, she's a state functionary through and through. She inspired the confidence of the apparat. It telegraphed that, finally, the professionals, the "grown ups", the adults-in-the-room were in charge and the age of overconfident amateurs and chaos agents was done.»
Again our blogger sees in these news confirmation that the politics of New New Labour are “She inspired the confidence of the apparat [...]. It telegraphed that, finally, the professionals [...] were in charge”, while in the same news I see that “She inspired the confidence of the [FIRE sector]. It telegraphed that, finally, the [globalist thatcherites] were in charge".
I continue to be astonished by this difference of vision... I ask myself whether it is question of priority: would "the establishment" given a choice between:
#1 "finally, the [socialist] professionals, the "grown ups" [against financial and property speculation], the adults-in-the-room [on the side of workers], were in charge"
#1 "finally, the [social-democratic] professionals, the "grown ups" [against financial and property speculation], the adults-in-the-room [on the side of workers], were in charge"
#2 "finally, the [nationalist thatcherite] [overconfident amateurs], the "[chaos agents]" [on the side of financial and property speculation] [...] were in charge"
I personally reckon that "the establishment" (and "Middle England") given a choice between #1 and #2 would choose #2, even if they would much prefer globalist thatcherite professionals (while "Middle England" would choose #1 rather happily), because that indeed was the choice they made in 2019. Put another way, given the choices:
* Social-democratic internationalist technocracy.
* Nationalist thatcherite improvisation.
* Globalist thatcherite managerialism.
Surely they would much prefer any flavour of thatcherism to any flavour of social-democracy, even if the social-democracy were technocratic.
@Blissex. I thought it was a very good, informative and thought-provoking piece of writing and that always comes as standard on this blog. Thanks Phil.
Consider that perhaps Blissex may be underestimating the Thatcherites.
Although personally rolling in gravy from the spoils of Thatcherism, they might be smart enough to realise that the end game of uninterrupted Thatcherism is a collapsing state, a "sacrifice zone" which would threaten their barely-earned gravy bath. For all the jaunts abroad that they may be able to afford, if they are tied in any way to this country, then eventually they'll also wind up smelling the literal rivers of shit.
Do we believe that they are capable of understanding that? How stupid and/or short-termist can we assume that they are?
Well, @Bliss is astonished by the difference in vision between himself and Phil. Nobody else is. What would be worrying, would be if there were little difference. It'd be fun if Bliss were to set up his own blog so we could compare and contrast.
Post a Comment