The new parliamentary term began today, and Keir Starmer led it off with a small reshuffle. Darren Jones has moved from the Treasury to 'Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister', a new position in charge of "delivery". Baronness Minouchie Shafik, having previously done stints at the IMF and Bank of England is now Starmer's chief economic advisor, and Tim Allan - former Blair lackey and founder of the Blairite comms firm, Portland, is confirmed as the sole head of Downing Street's PR machine. Gone is Liz Lloyd, another Blair era appointee, to make way for Jones. Politically, does it mean anything? Does it signify a fresh start? No. The government remains the same slow motion car crash it was yesterday.
That hasn't stopped some from trying to read significance into these mainly managerial moves. In some of the most tenedentious commentary I've read recently, for the Telegraph associate editor Gordon Rayner declares this was "a power grab" that shows Rachel Reeves is on borrowed time. The evidence? Moving Jones to Number 10 leaves the chancellor "publicly humiliated". Mindful that Prime Ministers who sack their next door neighbours aren't long for this political world, this is apparently an element of a low-key campaign to make her life impossible and force Reeves's resignation after her multiple misfires in office.
This, alas, is an exercise in right wing wishful thinking. A point underlined by the additional comment provided by John Redwood. For one, if the framing was true there would be "insiders" touting anonymous briefings. Maybe Rayner's contact list has a dearth of Labour numbers, so he couldn't find anyone to give him the inside track. But nowhere else is running the line that this is a constructive dismissal effort. Not even the gossip mongers at Guido, who prefer to dwell on how Jones's appointment takes some responsibilities off Pat McFadden. If displeasure underpins the reshuffle, one could make a more plausible case for it being at the expense of his brief, not Reeves's.
Since Reeves's appointment, there is some truth to the notion that she has blindsided Starmer, particularly with last summer's debacle over winter fuel payments. One might suggest Starmer had no choice but to stick by his chancellor so early in the new government, but her initiative was consistent with the Labour right's approach to social security. And it proved to be the jumping off points for further attacks, most of which have been blunted or abandoned. These cannot be layed solely at Reeves's door. The Prime Minister nodded every one on, and his unelected henchmen were greenlit to do their worst "persuading" opposition-minded MPs to back the line.
There is no truth in the view that Starmer and Reeves are in tension, let alone at splitting point. He has accepted her outlook, conditioned as it is by the Treasury/Bank of England/City nexus as the commonsense view on matters economic - reinforced by Shafik's appointment. This reshuffle is business-as-usual and more of the same. And Rayner's Telegraph piece? A case study of forcing the facts to fit a baseless conclusion. Which just about sums up the entirety of right wing politics in the moment of Conservatism's collapse.
Image Credit
2 comments:
The changes in personnel are like those made when a country is losing a war and keeps changing the general in charge hoping that it will somehow compensate for the lack of resources.
It is all proving too difficult for the adults in the room. It wasn't supposed to be like this. They believed their own rhetoric and with no critique of their policies from a supportive press before the election didn't see the holes in them. So, in real time they find their half baked ideas falling apart - the criminal gangs pushing migration, the easy welfare cuts on scroungers, the construction of housing, supporting Ukraine to victory, making Israel act like a civilised country, getting on Trumps good side, a better deal with the EU - and they think it is the communication of the message is the problem not the lack of instruments and mechanisms. actually deliver.
Deckchairs on the Titanic stuff.
The only posts where a change of guard will make a meaningful difference are those of Starmer and McSweeney.
At present, their game plan is to try and cover up the fact that they failed to deliver even the "meat and potatoes" stuff which they think matters most to their voters. They plan to do this by fiddling the books so that they can claim to have made progress on those non-memeable, non-talking-point, non-headline-grabbing targets. Almost a mirror of the strategy which played a very large role in sinking the Democrats last November.
Post a Comment