I didn't vote for them, I couldn't bring myself to even though I desperately wanted rid of the previous incumbents, but I actually quite liked Starmer - it was the rest of them. I thought he was serious and staid but competent and decent. Now I am honestly not sure why I thought that.
Consider that this lifelong (since I was old enough to think for myself), old-school tax-and-spend socialist would be more likely to vote for Kemi Badenoch than Starmer in an election tomorrow, and you have some idea of the disarray in which British politics finds itself.
I suspect that an "old-school tax-and-spend" Budget would have been popular even with those voters who aren't lifelong socialists. Instead, we got months of doom-and-gloom rhetoric followed by a degrowth Budget.
Old Labour policies would be better for the country than this mash-up of wokeness, pseudo-greenery, and the buying off of some of the best paid of the party's already-affluent public-sector clients.
In all honesty, I have no idea what they stand for. The working class? No, you just did a Budget that risks putting them out of jobs. Businesses? See the Budget. The environment? You just brought in a policy that's going to force farmers to sell their land. The elderly and vulnerable? Let's hope the assisted dying bill doesn't have the worst possible outcome for them.
On that note, much as I think the latter is a really important issue that deserves national debate, it always surprises me when governments make second tier issues like this a priority instead of focusing on the huge and immediate crises facing them. There was a good piece by Douglas Murray in the Spectator last week: "The NHS is too busy killing people who don’t want to die in order to be able to perform the same service for people who do."
I agree - that matches from my own understanding, also those around her were an entirely different level of competence and seriousness. The point is though in 1980 & 1981 (of which I have very vague recollections) I do wonder if it looked like she had completely screwed up.
Years ago I remember playing the crystal maze pub game with a friend - the challenge on the machine was the unscramble the picture game. My mate Martin really went for it. The pieces blurred and we were all like “he’s in the zone, this is amazing” - 5 seconds from the end he asked us to hit the bail out button as he admitted he couldn’t even remember what the picture was that had been scrambled.
Is Starmer Thatcher in 1980 or my mate Martin 5 Stellas into the evening full of confidence with 120 seconds on the clock? I reckon the latter - but how do we know for sure?
I agree about the "entirely different level of competence and seriousness." The Observer went on about the "banana skin factor" and the scriptwriters of "Minder" added "Maggie's millions" to the national lexicon, but in the end, none of it mattered.
Thatcher had a political vision and an idea as to how to carry it out (the latter met with more difficulties than the former), and I don't think Starmer really has either. One difference is that Thatcher wanted to overthrow the status quo (not only of Labour, but of Heath) while Starmer is really just swimming with the liberal-left consensus, which is often vaguely defined.
I struggle to identify one policy enacted by the Cameroon Coalition and the governments that followed it that were a decisive break with the Blair/Brown government and by extension the Starmer “project”. Free schools? There was the Euro referendum of course but they didn’t plan to loose it.
Some austerity was necessary and was no doubt planned by Labour had they won in 2010. The Cameroons were able to use it as red meat for their Thatcherite minded supporters but I am not that sure it was radically different than what would have unfolded under Labour save some spitefully targeted cuts.
Excellent as always. The problem for Labour is that it is very light on political talent. Too many MPs who went to university seem to have risen up through student politics, which was too performative and emotional in the 80s, and has only got worse since. Starmer had two qualities: he was the best available and he wasn't Corbyn and neither is enough.
I've suspected for a while that perhaps a majority of Labour MPs and supporters don't want to be in power. They like the carping and criticising part, and the moral grandstanding, but they're quite comfortable really, and don't particularly want change.
You're right about the lack of curiosity of the commentariat. Too much is blamed on Brexit and racism, and they don't even look at the easily-obtainable data that might contradict the narrative.
OTOH, the Rentoul article was rubbish. Not one of the "Blairites" is named. (Did they all demand anonymity, or worse, are they invented?) There's a serious lack of spine in these centrists too. Things might change if someone stood up, God knows, enough of the public are. The "librarians and academics" line is funny, because surely one of the unnamed is Peter Mandelson, only last week thwarted in his bid to become Chancellor of Oxford University. (I still don't think he'll be the next ambassador to the USA, as some are predicting.)
They don't want change because it means the destruction of their ideals. If your vision of yourself is as a rebel thinker, challenging the selfishness, greed and defeatism of your fellow humans and advocating for a Kinder, Gentler Utopia, the last thing you want is for society to say "Actually, yeah, let's do it!" Last time that happened, we got concentration camps, purges and millions starving. I say "they" but I recognise this tendency in myself to a degree.
There's an easy way to identify a socialist who doesn't want change. They are richer than they need to be.
Yes, Starmer is hopeless - as were the Tories, tbf - but I worry that it is not just Starmeritis (or Sunakism) since the US, Germany, and France, and the UK, all seem just *ungovernable*...by anyone.
Too much social media, the status quo gatekeepers like Marr and Sopel being overwhelmed, less deference than formerly, an inept and self-serving establishment, too big governments having to promise too much to win elections.
Maybe, as a sage said, when you go beyond bin collecting, it all gets very hard.
I didn't vote for them, I couldn't bring myself to even though I desperately wanted rid of the previous incumbents, but I actually quite liked Starmer - it was the rest of them. I thought he was serious and staid but competent and decent. Now I am honestly not sure why I thought that.
Consider that this lifelong (since I was old enough to think for myself), old-school tax-and-spend socialist would be more likely to vote for Kemi Badenoch than Starmer in an election tomorrow, and you have some idea of the disarray in which British politics finds itself.
I suspect that an "old-school tax-and-spend" Budget would have been popular even with those voters who aren't lifelong socialists. Instead, we got months of doom-and-gloom rhetoric followed by a degrowth Budget.
Old Labour policies would be better for the country than this mash-up of wokeness, pseudo-greenery, and the buying off of some of the best paid of the party's already-affluent public-sector clients.
In all honesty, I have no idea what they stand for. The working class? No, you just did a Budget that risks putting them out of jobs. Businesses? See the Budget. The environment? You just brought in a policy that's going to force farmers to sell their land. The elderly and vulnerable? Let's hope the assisted dying bill doesn't have the worst possible outcome for them.
On that note, much as I think the latter is a really important issue that deserves national debate, it always surprises me when governments make second tier issues like this a priority instead of focusing on the huge and immediate crises facing them. There was a good piece by Douglas Murray in the Spectator last week: "The NHS is too busy killing people who don’t want to die in order to be able to perform the same service for people who do."
I agree wholeheartedly. But I circle back to Thatchers first government and wonder if people felt the same at this point in the cycle.
Starmer isn't even in the same galaxy in terms of basic political skills, never mind in terms of having a workable agenda.
And the other main difference with Thatcher was the scale of the problems the country was facing at the time of her first election.
I agree - that matches from my own understanding, also those around her were an entirely different level of competence and seriousness. The point is though in 1980 & 1981 (of which I have very vague recollections) I do wonder if it looked like she had completely screwed up.
Years ago I remember playing the crystal maze pub game with a friend - the challenge on the machine was the unscramble the picture game. My mate Martin really went for it. The pieces blurred and we were all like “he’s in the zone, this is amazing” - 5 seconds from the end he asked us to hit the bail out button as he admitted he couldn’t even remember what the picture was that had been scrambled.
Is Starmer Thatcher in 1980 or my mate Martin 5 Stellas into the evening full of confidence with 120 seconds on the clock? I reckon the latter - but how do we know for sure?
I agree about the "entirely different level of competence and seriousness." The Observer went on about the "banana skin factor" and the scriptwriters of "Minder" added "Maggie's millions" to the national lexicon, but in the end, none of it mattered.
Thatcher had a political vision and an idea as to how to carry it out (the latter met with more difficulties than the former), and I don't think Starmer really has either. One difference is that Thatcher wanted to overthrow the status quo (not only of Labour, but of Heath) while Starmer is really just swimming with the liberal-left consensus, which is often vaguely defined.
I struggle to identify one policy enacted by the Cameroon Coalition and the governments that followed it that were a decisive break with the Blair/Brown government and by extension the Starmer “project”. Free schools? There was the Euro referendum of course but they didn’t plan to loose it.
“The politics of failure have failed. It’s time to make them work again.” - British Political Parties.
I would say austerity? Although that was also a disaster
Some austerity was necessary and was no doubt planned by Labour had they won in 2010. The Cameroons were able to use it as red meat for their Thatcherite minded supporters but I am not that sure it was radically different than what would have unfolded under Labour save some spitefully targeted cuts.
Excellent as always. The problem for Labour is that it is very light on political talent. Too many MPs who went to university seem to have risen up through student politics, which was too performative and emotional in the 80s, and has only got worse since. Starmer had two qualities: he was the best available and he wasn't Corbyn and neither is enough.
I've suspected for a while that perhaps a majority of Labour MPs and supporters don't want to be in power. They like the carping and criticising part, and the moral grandstanding, but they're quite comfortable really, and don't particularly want change.
You're right about the lack of curiosity of the commentariat. Too much is blamed on Brexit and racism, and they don't even look at the easily-obtainable data that might contradict the narrative.
OTOH, the Rentoul article was rubbish. Not one of the "Blairites" is named. (Did they all demand anonymity, or worse, are they invented?) There's a serious lack of spine in these centrists too. Things might change if someone stood up, God knows, enough of the public are. The "librarians and academics" line is funny, because surely one of the unnamed is Peter Mandelson, only last week thwarted in his bid to become Chancellor of Oxford University. (I still don't think he'll be the next ambassador to the USA, as some are predicting.)
They don't want change because it means the destruction of their ideals. If your vision of yourself is as a rebel thinker, challenging the selfishness, greed and defeatism of your fellow humans and advocating for a Kinder, Gentler Utopia, the last thing you want is for society to say "Actually, yeah, let's do it!" Last time that happened, we got concentration camps, purges and millions starving. I say "they" but I recognise this tendency in myself to a degree.
There's an easy way to identify a socialist who doesn't want change. They are richer than they need to be.
Great article, Damian.
Yes, Starmer is hopeless - as were the Tories, tbf - but I worry that it is not just Starmeritis (or Sunakism) since the US, Germany, and France, and the UK, all seem just *ungovernable*...by anyone.
Too much social media, the status quo gatekeepers like Marr and Sopel being overwhelmed, less deference than formerly, an inept and self-serving establishment, too big governments having to promise too much to win elections.
Maybe, as a sage said, when you go beyond bin collecting, it all gets very hard.