Keir Starmer

[Gnasher]

3 hours ago, Captain Howdy said:

I think it’s clear, inarguable in fact, that Starmer is trying to steer the party back towards Blairism, I don’t think he wants to unite the party, he would dispel the left if he could, I think he sees this as the only way Labour can wrestle power from the Conservatives. Whether or not you agree with him is a different argument. Very surprised to see him be so brazen as to bring back the prince of darkness though I must say.

Mandy's a vote winner

 

 

[Captain Howdy]

Politician in being a dodgy fucker shocker. I for one am shocked.

[Bruce Spanner]

Big speech at 11.

 

Could be defining.

 

Looking at policy to rival Beveridge Reforms.

 

https://labour.org.uk/a-new-chapter/

 

For those interested.

[Mudface]

4 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

Big speech at 11.

 

Could be defining.

 

Looking at policy to rival Beveridge Reforms.

 

https://labour.org.uk/a-new-chapter/

 

For those interested.

It's just to announce Chuka's comeback as policy director.

[Bruce Spanner]

7 minutes ago, Mudface said:

It's just to announce Chuka's comeback as policy director.

We all know it’s Mandy on coms that’s the big comeback draw.

With typical perspective even before it’s even happened...

 

Pricks.

Attacked from left and right: Corbynista campaign group Momentum is also preemptively piling in, press releasing in advance: “Today’s speech showed no ambition and little substance. We can’t win in 2024 by promising to be better managers of the same system.” You get the feeling a few comrades have already scheduled tweets for 11.45 a.m. asking: “Is that it?”

[Mudface]

2 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

With typical perspective even before it’s even happened...

 

Pricks.

Attacked from left and right: Corbynista campaign group Momentum is also preemptively piling in, press releasing in advance: “Today’s speech showed no ambition and little substance. We can’t win in 2024 by promising to be better managers of the same system.” You get the feeling a few comrades have already scheduled tweets for 11.45 a.m. asking: “Is that it?”

Really? Dickheads, I'm not expecting a massive amount today, but we're over 3 and a half years away from an election, give the cunt a chance. 

[Vincent Vega]

Interesting opinion piece in The Guardian the other day.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/16/keir-starmer-leadership-urgent-course-correction-labour
 

Keir Starmer's leadership needs an urgent course correction

Tom Kibasi
I helped elect the Labour leader, but his first year has seen an unnecessary war on the left and the lack of any authentic vision for the country

It makes sense for those who want to see Labour return to power to examine the lessons of Tony Blair’s electoral victories: he was, after all, the only Labour leader to have won an election in half a century. Not such a surprise, then, that Keir Starmer has asked Peter Mandelson for help, according to reports at the weekend. As one of the strategic architects of Starmer’s successful leadership campaign, however, I believe that after a year in the job he appears to have learned the wrong lessons and needs to alter course.

 

Blair understood the need to bring his party together and to keep them on his side; it was not until his second term in office that he broke with the Labourmembership over the Iraq war abroad and public service reform at home. “We cannot protect the ordinary against the abuse of power by leaving them to it; we must protect each other. That is our insight, a belief in society, working together, solidarity, cooperation, partnership. These are our words. This is my socialism, and we should stop apologising for using the word.” That was his first conference speech, a few months after being elected as leader of the Labour party. The first commitment on the famous pledge card of the 1997 election was to abolish the assisted places scheme and use the money to reduce class sizes for five- and six-year-olds – precisely the kind of antagonistic politics designed to appeal to the party faithful (and so widely used by Jeremy Corbyn).

 

The contrast with Starmer is stark. In his first year as leader, he has provoked a completely unnecessary war with the party’s left. The fact that Starmer received more votes in 2020 than Corbyn polled in either 2015 or 2016 showed that the Labour membership recognised a different approach was needed. Some 40% of those that voted twice for Corbyn voted for Starmer. His campaign correctly assessed that Labour members were never the baying mob that much of the press made them out to be and that they could be persuaded to back a different approach. A full-frontal assault on the membership was both unnecessary and avoidable.

It was obvious enough to the public that Sir Keir Starmer QC, a distinguished former director of public prosecutions, is not Jeremy Corbyn. It was therefore strategically foolish to expend so much political capital making that negative point rather than positively defining the new leader of the party. The political logic appears to be that Corbyn is despised in “red wall” seats and so the new leadership would benefit from politically spanking him. All it has done is to remind the public of Labour’s divisions and to keep the conversation stuck in the past. As the former deputy leader Tom Watson pointed out during the Corbyn years (to cheers from Labour’s right), you “don’t enhance your brand by trashing your record”.

 

When Starmer attempted to expel his predecessor from the Labour party, his office gleefully briefed that it would be his “clause IV” moment. But this is a spurious analogy. There was a democratic vote on the new clause IV; it was an act of persuasion, not the brute application of formal power. The message was that Blair had the courage of his convictions, would confront vested interests, and was prepared to take risks.

 

Whether in his keynote speeches or in weekly jousts at prime minister’s questions, Blair attacked the Tories with gusto. Those attacks may have started on competence but never ended there: Blair was always careful to move on the argument to the Conservatives’ underlying values and free-market ideology.

 

Starmer has instead let focus groups define his strategy, which is to go easy on the government, rather than developing a clear message of his own. This is profoundly naive: the public will always say they dislike politicians “playing politics”. Letting randomly selected members of the public set the political tone is followership, not leadership. And going easy on the Tories was not the inevitable answer to a dislike of incessant squabbling during a national crisis. Starmer could have set out what a Labour government would do differently and why.

 

A successful political project must have an intellectual core. It demands an analysis of the present moment and a way forward for the country in the years to come. In his acceptance speech and every major speech thereafter, Blair set out the values, principles, and positions of the New Labour project that would carry the party into government and define the way in which they governed for 10 years.

 

In contrast, just as Ed Miliband had before him, Starmer has attempted a clumsy embrace of “blue Labour” and the politics of faith, flag and family. Parts of its analysis are compelling – that people crave strong relationships, a feeling of belonging, and dignity at work – but overall it points out problems and not possibilities. It is a political dead end. If Starmer were to depart as leader tomorrow, he would not leave a trace of a meaningful political project in his wake.

 

What’s more, Boris Johnson’s great appeal is his perceived lack of artifice; what Westminster sees as buffoonish comes across to many as sincerity and authenticity. Attempting to manufacture a connection with the electorate by wrapping Labour in the union jack plays straight into Johnson’s hands. Starmer’s innate problem was always that he would lose to Johnson on the who voters would “rather have a pint with” test. It would’ve been better to emphasise his integrity – not pretend to be someone he wasn’t – and question Johnson’s honesty. Instead, his team have torpedoed his defence and left him open to being defined by the Tory party and rightwing press.

 

Meanwhile, the Tories themselves have been let off the hook for their disastrous mismanagement of the pandemic and for their dire Brexit deal, which has led to a slump in exports. And the government can now point to a stunning success in the form of its vaccines programme. The partnership between AstraZeneca, Oxford University and the government could prove to be a template for industrial policy. And the latest proposals to dismantle the internal market in the NHS show a government that is prepared to be more pragmatic and less ideological than many might have imagined. All these are signs that power won’t be handed to Labour on a platter at the next election.

 

In last year’s leadership contest, it was right for Labour members to vote for a change from a political project that had hit the buffers. Starmer was the candidate blessed with the most intrinsic talent and he still has it in him to turn things around. But a radical change in his approach is now needed if he is to become a great leader of his party and the next prime minister of this country.

 

The country cannot afford for Starmer to waste another year being hard on Labour and soft on the Tories. If that was not the strategic intent, then he must ask himself how it became the outcome. It’s not what the opposition is there to do. It’s not what a country dealing with a terrible death toll, a deep recession and the disruption of a hard Brexit needs. As the polls show, it’s a journey to nowhere. Starmer must mend his relationship with his party and confront the Tories. That might sound like obvious advice. But it seems that it still needs saying.

 

• Tom Kibasi is a writer and researcher on politics and economics

 

 

[Bruce Spanner]

Just now, Vincent Vega said:

Interesting opinion piece in The Guardian the other day.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/16/keir-starmer-leadership-urgent-course-correction-labour
 

Keir Starmer's leadership needs an urgent course correction

Tom Kibasi
I helped elect the Labour leader, but his first year has seen an unnecessary war on the left and the lack of any authentic vision for the country

It makes sense for those who want to see Labour return to power to examine the lessons of Tony Blair’s electoral victories: he was, after all, the only Labour leader to have won an election in half a century. Not such a surprise, then, that Keir Starmer has asked Peter Mandelson for help, according to reports at the weekend. As one of the strategic architects of Starmer’s successful leadership campaign, however, I believe that after a year in the job he appears to have learned the wrong lessons and needs to alter course.

Blair understood the need to bring his party together and to keep them on his side; it was not until his second term in office that he broke with the Labourmembership over the Iraq war abroad and public service reform at home. “We cannot protect the ordinary against the abuse of power by leaving them to it; we must protect each other. That is our insight, a belief in society, working together, solidarity, cooperation, partnership. These are our words. This is my socialism, and we should stop apologising for using the word.” That was his first conference speech, a few months after being elected as leader of the Labour party. The first commitment on the famous pledge card of the 1997 election was to abolish the assisted places scheme and use the money to reduce class sizes for five- and six-year-olds – precisely the kind of antagonistic politics designed to appeal to the party faithful (and so widely used by Jeremy Corbyn).

The contrast with Starmer is stark. In his first year as leader, he has provoked a completely unnecessary war with the party’s left. The fact that Starmer received more votes in 2020 than Corbyn polled in either 2015 or 2016 showed that the Labour membership recognised a different approach was needed. Some 40% of those that voted twice for Corbyn voted for Starmer. His campaign correctly assessed that Labour members were never the baying mob that much of the press made them out to be and that they could be persuaded to back a different approach. A full-frontal assault on the membership was both unnecessary and avoidable.

It was obvious enough to the public that Sir Keir Starmer QC, a distinguished former director of public prosecutions, is not Jeremy Corbyn. It was therefore strategically foolish to expend so much political capital making that negative point rather than positively defining the new leader of the party. The political logic appears to be that Corbyn is despised in “red wall” seats and so the new leadership would benefit from politically spanking him. All it has done is to remind the public of Labour’s divisions and to keep the conversation stuck in the past. As the former deputy leader Tom Watson pointed out during the Corbyn years (to cheers from Labour’s right), you “don’t enhance your brand by trashing your record”.

When Starmer attempted to expel his predecessor from the Labour party, his office gleefully briefed that it would be his “clause IV” moment. But this is a spurious analogy. There was a democratic vote on the new clause IV; it was an act of persuasion, not the brute application of formal power. The message was that Blair had the courage of his convictions, would confront vested interests, and was prepared to take risks.

Whether in his keynote speeches or in weekly jousts at prime minister’s questions, Blair attacked the Tories with gusto. Those attacks may have started on competence but never ended there: Blair was always careful to move on the argument to the Conservatives’ underlying values and free-market ideology.

Starmer has instead let focus groups define his strategy, which is to go easy on the government, rather than developing a clear message of his own. This is profoundly naive: the public will always say they dislike politicians “playing politics”. Letting randomly selected members of the public set the political tone is followership, not leadership. And going easy on the Tories was not the inevitable answer to a dislike of incessant squabbling during a national crisis. Starmer could have set out what a Labour government would do differently and why.

A successful political project must have an intellectual core. It demands an analysis of the present moment and a way forward for the country in the years to come. In his acceptance speech and every major speech thereafter, Blair set out the values, principles, and positions of the New Labour project that would carry the party into government and define the way in which they governed for 10 years.

In contrast, just as Ed Miliband had before him, Starmer has attempted a clumsy embrace of “blue Labour” and the politics of faith, flag and family. Parts of its analysis are compelling – that people crave strong relationships, a feeling of belonging, and dignity at work – but overall it points out problems and not possibilities. It is a political dead end. If Starmer were to depart as leader tomorrow, he would not leave a trace of a meaningful political project in his wake.

What’s more, Boris Johnson’s great appeal is his perceived lack of artifice; what Westminster sees as buffoonish comes across to many as sincerity and authenticity. Attempting to manufacture a connection with the electorate by wrapping Labour in the union jack plays straight into Johnson’s hands. Starmer’s innate problem was always that he would lose to Johnson on the who voters would “rather have a pint with” test. It would’ve been better to emphasise his integrity – not pretend to be someone he wasn’t – and question Johnson’s honesty. Instead, his team have torpedoed his defence and left him open to being defined by the Tory party and rightwing press.

Meanwhile, the Tories themselves have been let off the hook for their disastrous mismanagement of the pandemic and for their dire Brexit deal, which has led to a slump in exports. And the government can now point to a stunning success in the form of its vaccines programme. The partnership between AstraZeneca, Oxford University and the government could prove to be a template for industrial policy. And the latest proposals to dismantle the internal market in the NHS show a government that is prepared to be more pragmatic and less ideological than many might have imagined. All these are signs that power won’t be handed to Labour on a platter at the next election.

In last year’s leadership contest, it was right for Labour members to vote for a change from a political project that had hit the buffers. Starmer was the candidate blessed with the most intrinsic talent and he still has it in him to turn things around. But a radical change in his approach is now needed if he is to become a great leader of his party and the next prime minister of this country.

The country cannot afford for Starmer to waste another year being hard on Labour and soft on the Tories. If that was not the strategic intent, then he must ask himself how it became the outcome. It’s not what the opposition is there to do. It’s not what a country dealing with a terrible death toll, a deep recession and the disruption of a hard Brexit needs. As the polls show, it’s a journey to nowhere. Starmer must mend his relationship with his party and confront the Tories. That might sound like obvious advice. But it seems that it still needs saying.

• Tom Kibasi is a writer and researcher on politics and economics

 

 

Yeah, reads like someone who’s bitter about being kicked out of the inner circle, as does the other piece in The New Statesman that said, effectively, the same.

 

 

[Vincent Vega]

3 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

Yeah, reads like someone who’s bitter about being kicked out of the inner circle, as does the other piece in The New Statesman that said, effectively, the same.

 

 

It didn’t come over as bitter to me, I thought most of it rung true. 

[Bruce Spanner]

1 minute ago, Vincent Vega said:

It didn’t come over as bitter to me, I thought most of it rung true. 

Yeah, it’s reasonable, but the author is someone who has been removed from the inner circle so has no real insight in to strategy, but will confidently claim they’ll know what’s to happen.

 

Bit of a hack job in my opinion. 

[Jairzinho]

10 minutes ago, Vincent Vega said:

Interesting opinion piece in The Guardian the other day.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/16/keir-starmer-leadership-urgent-course-correction-labour
 

Keir Starmer's leadership needs an urgent course correction

Tom Kibasi
I helped elect the Labour leader, but his first year has seen an unnecessary war on the left and the lack of any authentic vision for the country

It makes sense for those who want to see Labour return to power to examine the lessons of Tony Blair’s electoral victories: he was, after all, the only Labour leader to have won an election in half a century. Not such a surprise, then, that Keir Starmer has asked Peter Mandelson for help, according to reports at the weekend. As one of the strategic architects of Starmer’s successful leadership campaign, however, I believe that after a year in the job he appears to have learned the wrong lessons and needs to alter course.

 

Blair understood the need to bring his party together and to keep them on his side; it was not until his second term in office that he broke with the Labourmembership over the Iraq war abroad and public service reform at home. “We cannot protect the ordinary against the abuse of power by leaving them to it; we must protect each other. That is our insight, a belief in society, working together, solidarity, cooperation, partnership. These are our words. This is my socialism, and we should stop apologising for using the word.” That was his first conference speech, a few months after being elected as leader of the Labour party. The first commitment on the famous pledge card of the 1997 election was to abolish the assisted places scheme and use the money to reduce class sizes for five- and six-year-olds – precisely the kind of antagonistic politics designed to appeal to the party faithful (and so widely used by Jeremy Corbyn).

 

The contrast with Starmer is stark. In his first year as leader, he has provoked a completely unnecessary war with the party’s left. The fact that Starmer received more votes in 2020 than Corbyn polled in either 2015 or 2016 showed that the Labour membership recognised a different approach was needed. Some 40% of those that voted twice for Corbyn voted for Starmer. His campaign correctly assessed that Labour members were never the baying mob that much of the press made them out to be and that they could be persuaded to back a different approach. A full-frontal assault on the membership was both unnecessary and avoidable.

It was obvious enough to the public that Sir Keir Starmer QC, a distinguished former director of public prosecutions, is not Jeremy Corbyn. It was therefore strategically foolish to expend so much political capital making that negative point rather than positively defining the new leader of the party. The political logic appears to be that Corbyn is despised in “red wall” seats and so the new leadership would benefit from politically spanking him. All it has done is to remind the public of Labour’s divisions and to keep the conversation stuck in the past. As the former deputy leader Tom Watson pointed out during the Corbyn years (to cheers from Labour’s right), you “don’t enhance your brand by trashing your record”.

 

When Starmer attempted to expel his predecessor from the Labour party, his office gleefully briefed that it would be his “clause IV” moment. But this is a spurious analogy. There was a democratic vote on the new clause IV; it was an act of persuasion, not the brute application of formal power. The message was that Blair had the courage of his convictions, would confront vested interests, and was prepared to take risks.

 

Whether in his keynote speeches or in weekly jousts at prime minister’s questions, Blair attacked the Tories with gusto. Those attacks may have started on competence but never ended there: Blair was always careful to move on the argument to the Conservatives’ underlying values and free-market ideology.

 

Starmer has instead let focus groups define his strategy, which is to go easy on the government, rather than developing a clear message of his own. This is profoundly naive: the public will always say they dislike politicians “playing politics”. Letting randomly selected members of the public set the political tone is followership, not leadership. And going easy on the Tories was not the inevitable answer to a dislike of incessant squabbling during a national crisis. Starmer could have set out what a Labour government would do differently and why.

 

A successful political project must have an intellectual core. It demands an analysis of the present moment and a way forward for the country in the years to come. In his acceptance speech and every major speech thereafter, Blair set out the values, principles, and positions of the New Labour project that would carry the party into government and define the way in which they governed for 10 years.

 

In contrast, just as Ed Miliband had before him, Starmer has attempted a clumsy embrace of “blue Labour” and the politics of faith, flag and family. Parts of its analysis are compelling – that people crave strong relationships, a feeling of belonging, and dignity at work – but overall it points out problems and not possibilities. It is a political dead end. If Starmer were to depart as leader tomorrow, he would not leave a trace of a meaningful political project in his wake.

 

What’s more, Boris Johnson’s great appeal is his perceived lack of artifice; what Westminster sees as buffoonish comes across to many as sincerity and authenticity. Attempting to manufacture a connection with the electorate by wrapping Labour in the union jack plays straight into Johnson’s hands. Starmer’s innate problem was always that he would lose to Johnson on the who voters would “rather have a pint with” test. It would’ve been better to emphasise his integrity – not pretend to be someone he wasn’t – and question Johnson’s honesty. Instead, his team have torpedoed his defence and left him open to being defined by the Tory party and rightwing press.

 

Meanwhile, the Tories themselves have been let off the hook for their disastrous mismanagement of the pandemic and for their dire Brexit deal, which has led to a slump in exports. And the government can now point to a stunning success in the form of its vaccines programme. The partnership between AstraZeneca, Oxford University and the government could prove to be a template for industrial policy. And the latest proposals to dismantle the internal market in the NHS show a government that is prepared to be more pragmatic and less ideological than many might have imagined. All these are signs that power won’t be handed to Labour on a platter at the next election.

 

In last year’s leadership contest, it was right for Labour members to vote for a change from a political project that had hit the buffers. Starmer was the candidate blessed with the most intrinsic talent and he still has it in him to turn things around. But a radical change in his approach is now needed if he is to become a great leader of his party and the next prime minister of this country.

 

The country cannot afford for Starmer to waste another year being hard on Labour and soft on the Tories. If that was not the strategic intent, then he must ask himself how it became the outcome. It’s not what the opposition is there to do. It’s not what a country dealing with a terrible death toll, a deep recession and the disruption of a hard Brexit needs. As the polls show, it’s a journey to nowhere. Starmer must mend his relationship with his party and confront the Tories. That might sound like obvious advice. But it seems that it still needs saying.

 

• Tom Kibasi is a writer and researcher on politics and economics

 

 

Good article that.

 

 

[sir roger]

It seems pretty sensible stuff to me and critical of both sides. I think an interesting point is that 40% of members who voted Corbyn twice voted for Starmer , over 100,000 members, but he has approached it by assuming getting rid of Corbyn and a few beardies will make everybody in the party happy.

 

Putting to one side the left / right thing and even policies , I reckon Starmer's biggest problem with voters will be that he comes across as crushingly dull and nasal with no sense of humour whatsoever. Commentators equate him with Blair , but Blair had charisma and energy in spades.

 

[Jairzinho]

7 minutes ago, sir roger said:

It seems pretty sensible stuff to me and critical of both sides. I think an interesting point is that 40% of members who voted Corbyn twice voted for Starmer , over 100,000 members, but he has approached it by assuming getting rid of Corbyn and a few beardies will make everybody in the party happy.

 

Putting to one side the left / right thing and even policies , I reckon Starmer's biggest problem with voters will be that he comes across as crushingly dull and nasal with no sense of humour whatsoever. Commentators equate him with Blair , but Blair had charisma and energy in spades.

 

Yes, good point re Blair. He had the ability to charm people, Starmer doesn't.

 

Quote

 If Starmer were to depart as leader tomorrow, he would not leave a trace of a meaningful political project in his wake.

Quote

Starmer’s innate problem was always that he would lose to Johnson on the who voters would “rather have a pint with” test. 

These are problems, but at least he can do something about the first one. Hopefully today is the start of that.

[Rushies tash]

1 hour ago, Bruce Spanner said:

We all know it’s Mandy on coms that’s the big comeback draw.

With typical perspective even before it’s even happened...

 

Pricks.

Attacked from left and right: Corbynista campaign group Momentum is also preemptively piling in, press releasing in advance: “Today’s speech showed no ambition and little substance. We can’t win in 2024 by promising to be better managers of the same system.” You get the feeling a few comrades have already scheduled tweets for 11.45 a.m. asking: “Is that it?”

Corbynista? Comrades? Ffs.

[Denny Crane]

Good read this. 

 

 

 

IT'S NOT THE 90S ANY MORE

Sir Keir Starmer wants to party like it’s 1999. That seems to be his motive for seeking the advice of Peter Mandelson. There is, however, a big problem with this. It’s not the 1990s any more. There have been huge socio-economic changes since then, which require very different policy responses.

One of these is that the economy is now stagnating. In the 20 years to May 1997 labour productivity grew by an average of 2.3 per cent. In the 12 years before the pandemic, however, it grew by only 0.2 per cent per year. Back in the 90s, therefore, it was reasonable to believe that the economy would grow well if governments could only provide the right framework such as stable macroeconomic policy. Today, though, we know that whilst policy stability might be necessary, it is not sufficient. Capitalism has lost its dynamism. That requires a different – perhaps more activist – policy response.

A big reason for this stagnation is, of course, the legacy of the financial crisis. Which itself shows another reason to need to break with 1990s thinking. In his 1996 book The Blair Revolution, Mandelson wrote of the need for “firm macroeconomic policies to avoid any repetition of boom and bust”. “By far the most important thing” he wrote “is to get macroeconomic policy right.” But we now know that macro policy is not enough to avoid recessions and their aftermath. The banking crisis taught us that the economy is not naturally stable, thrown into recession only by policy error. Instead, crises arise from private sector decisions which cannot be fully corrected by good policy. Mandelson’s claim that “our understanding of economics has greatly advanced in this century, and in theory enables economic fluctuations to be damped and corrected” now reads as simple-minded hubris.

Our long stagnation requires another change in thinking from the 90s. “New Labour emphasizes macroeconomic stability” wrote Mandelson “because of principled objections to high inflation and the economic and social havoc it wreaks.”

Today, though, we have the opposite problem. Inflation is too low. A rise in it might actually be a good thing as it would allow us to escape the zero(ish) bound on interest rates. Mandelson wrote of the need for a “tight new discipline” in fiscal policy. That might have made sense in an inflation-prone economy where real interest rates were over 4%. But when economies are stagnant and real rates minus 2%? Not so much.

Stagnation also overturns 1990s ideas about inequality. Although Mandelson has disowned his famous remark about being "intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich as long as they pay their taxes", I’m not sure he appreciates just how wrong it was. A decade and a half of stagnation shows us that inequality is not a minor issue ameliorable by tweaks to the tax system. Instead, it’s plausible that inequality is a big cause of slow growth. It concentrates power within companies into the hands of reckless Stalinists like Fred Goodwin; it incentivizes rent-seeking; it generates perverse incentives; reduces trust, innovation and investment; and so on.

Growth-enhancing policies thus require much more egalitarian actions than we thought in the 90s, therefore.

And the inequality that matters now is very different from that of the 90s. Back then, leftists such as Will Hutton spoke of the 30-30-40 society: “30 per cent disadvantaged and marginalised; 30 per cent insecure; 40 per cent privileged.” Today, though, what matters is the wealth and power of the top 1%, or 0.1%. New Labour was largely oblivious to this: in hindsight, one of Gordon Brown’s great failings was his undue deference to bank bosses.

Because the economics has changed since the 90s, so too has the politics. I mean this in two big ways.

One is that the growing wealth of the mega-rich has increased their power over politics. In the 90s, the main opposition to Labour was founded upon businesses’ fears of higher taxes and bad macroeconomic management. The party could then assuage such concerns easily. Today, though, it faces opposition from eccentric billionaires stoking up culture wars. It’s less obvious what to do about this.

Secondly, our long stagnation has strengthened illiberal populist sentiment – just as Ben Friedman predicted. In the 90s and 00s the Tories lost elections massively by “banging on about Europe”. Things have changed since. In the 90s, voters chose technocrats over cranks. They no longer do so. Which gives Labour a dilemma: how far to accommodate itself to populism, and how far to resist it?

In all these ways, the 90s is utterly irrelevant today. What worked then will not work now. Few centrists, however, seem to grasp this. One of their defining features, indeed, is a complete innocence of economic realities and a vacuum where ideas should be.

Which brings us to a paradox. One of the great achievements of Tony Blair was to realize that social democracy had to reinvent itself for the new times of the 1990s. His epigones, however, don’t appreciate that Labour now needs another reinvention for different times, and don’t give John McDonnell credit enough for grasping this fact. The thing about modernizations, though, is that you have to keep doing them

 

https://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2021/02/its-not-the-90s-any-more.html

 

 

 

[Scooby Dudek]

2 hours ago, Bruce Spanner said:

We all know it’s Mandy on coms that’s the big comeback draw.

With typical perspective even before it’s even happened...

 

Pricks.

Attacked from left and right: Corbynista campaign group Momentum is also preemptively piling in, press releasing in advance: “Today’s speech showed no ambition and little substance. We can’t win in 2024 by promising to be better managers of the same system.” You get the feeling a few comrades have already scheduled tweets for 11.45 a.m. asking: “Is that it?”

Not defending but calling anything Corbynista shows bias against, both sides need to stop. Secondly will they not have received a copy of the speech ? I have no idea but I know a lot of major speeches are handed out so column inches or replies can be pre written.

[Section_31]

Someone made a good point recently about America and how the two party system is no longer fit for purpose, and I think the same is absolutely true here. There's two many diverging opinions on both sides, but more so on 'the left' (whatever that means these days). 

 

The way our society is structured, the only way we'll get any real change is if we get some billionaire Musk type who has a heart attack, wakes up one day and decides not to be a cunt and buys out loads of newspapers and starts building cheap houses. Failing that, we're fucked. The grassroots have had 30 years of weedol. 

[Bruce Spanner]

15 minutes ago, Scooby Dudek said:

Not defending but calling anything Corbynista shows bias against, both sides need to stop. Secondly will they not have received a copy of the speech ? I have no idea but I know a lot of major speeches are handed out so column inches or replies can be pre written.

This wasn’t written by a Labour author.

 

Momentum are unashamedly Corbyn supporters, so I think that needs to be made clear for full disclosure.

 

And they are a pressure group, not an elected body so why should they have preview access?

 

I agree with the argument that both sides need to button it though, for a while at least and get on with attacking the tories and chipping away at the lead. When it comes to policy then everyone can have their two penneth worth. 

 

Like the article above, which contains a lot of uncomfortable truth, but also a lot of very unhelpful positioning, seeding and supposition, when articles the week/month before were full of praise from the very same people? It’s written by somebody who no longer has Starmers, or his teams, ear and he’s chosen now to write a piece about how he’s not up to the job, a day before a speech which is to set out the very same things they’re complaining about?

 

Has a touch of the ‘these are my opinions, if you don’t like them I have others and am willing to spout them for cash and coverage’

[Vincent Vega]

1 hour ago, sir roger said:

It seems pretty sensible stuff to me and critical of both sides. I think an interesting point is that 40% of members who voted Corbyn twice voted for Starmer , over 100,000 members, but he has approached it by assuming getting rid of Corbyn and a few beardies will make everybody in the party happy.

 

Putting to one side the left / right thing and even policies , I reckon Starmer's biggest problem with voters will be that he comes across as crushingly dull and nasal with no sense of humour whatsoever. Commentators equate him with Blair , but Blair had charisma and energy in spades.

 

Agree he comes across as dull. He’s not helped by a front bench that seems equally dull. Anneliese Dodds might have a big brain but is she really suited to shadow chancellor? I’d give it to Ed Milliband, at least he’s a good communicator and would give Sunak something to think about. I think John Ashton at health is dull (I’d give this to Rosina Allin-Khan) , as is Kate Green at education, and I can’t stand Rachel Reeves who seems to get a lot of airtime shadowing Gove in whatever it is he does. I’m also having regrets about voting for Angela Rayner as deputy leader, she doesn’t cut it for me. All this is worrying because the Tory cabinet is bad as it’s possible to get.

 

[cloggypop]

54 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

Someone made a good point recently about America and how the two party system is no longer fit for purpose, and I think the same is absolutely true here. There's two many diverging opinions on both sides, but more so on 'the left' (whatever that means these days). 

 

The way our society is structured, the only way we'll get any real change is if we get some billionaire Musk type who has a heart attack, wakes up one day and decides not to be a cunt and buys out loads of newspapers and starts building cheap houses. Failing that, we're fucked. The grassroots have had 30 years of weedol. 

There's 37 parties in the election here next month ranging from far left to far right. It's still going to end up with a centrist coalition headed by Mark Rutte just like the government that's just resigned.

[Section_31]

14 minutes ago, Vincent Vega said:

Agree he comes across as dull. He’s not helped by a front bench that seems equally dull. Anneliese Dodds might have a big brain but is she really suited to shadow chancellor? I’d give it to Ed Milliband, at least he’s a good communicator and would give Sunak something to think about. I think John Ashton at health is dull (I’d give this to Rosina Allin-Khan) , as is Kate Green at education, and I can’t stand Rachel Reeves who seems to get a lot of airtime shadowing Gove in whatever it is he does. I’m also having regrets about voting for Angela Rayner as deputy leader, she doesn’t cut it for me. All this is worrying because the Tory cabinet is bad as it’s possible to get.

 

Isn't the concept of being 'dull' or entertaining exactly what led us to the clusterfuck that is Boris Johnson though? Or David Cameron for that matter, basically Blair without a brain, literally an empty suit and a smile but who's widely thought to be (including in Obama's dispatches) an imbecile who led the country to economic and social ruin through austerity and Brexit. One of the reasons he trounced Brown and Miliband, despite them both (certainly the former) being light years ahead in the IQ and morality stakes) is because he had pomade in his hair and a designer suit. Not for me Clive. 

 

You could replace Starmer with a caricature called Paul Yorkshire and get him to just talk about how he hates Thatcher and he'd pick up votes from the same vocal but ultimately small faction, but wouldn't win an election. Not that I'm saying Starmer will either on this showing, but still. 

 

By all means have a leader with some charisma, but it should be way down on the list of desirable traits. I want someone who can build a party machine capable of winning an election by using the tools it needs to win them, whether it's organising or message management, building internal coalitions and reaching out to non voters.  

[Rushies tash]

49 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

This wasn’t written by a Labour author.

 

Momentum are unashamedly Corbyn supporters, so I think that needs to be made clear for full disclosure.

 

And they are a pressure group, not an elected body so why should they have preview access?

 

I agree with the argument that both sides need to button it though, for a while at least and get on with attacking the tories and chipping away at the lead. When it comes to policy then everyone can have their two penneth worth. 

 

Like the article above, which contains a lot of uncomfortable truth, but also a lot of very unhelpful positioning, seeding and supposition, when articles the week/month before were full of praise from the very same people? It’s written by somebody who no longer has Starmers, or his teams, ear and he’s chosen now to write a piece about how he’s not up to the job, a day before a speech which is to set out the very same things they’re complaining about?

 

Has a touch of the ‘these are my opinions, if you don’t like them I have others and am willing to spout them for cash and coverage’

I think that's what still irks the left - the calls for unity were very silent when Corbyn was being briefed against constantly. I agree about moving on, but as you allude to in your post about Starmer's bland centrist cabinet, unless they take the left with them, there will still be alot of ill feeling towards the current Labour leadership from those who feel that they're being marginalised.

[Rico1304]

Did any of you think that Corbyn wasn’t dull? He was awful. 

[Jairzinho]

19 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

Isn't the concept of being 'dull' or entertaining exactly what led us to the clusterfuck that is Boris Johnson though? Or David Cameron for that matter, basically Blair without a brain, literally an empty suit and a smile but who's widely thought to be (including in Obama's dispatches) an imbecile who led the country to economic and social ruin through austerity and Brexit. One of the reasons he trounced Brown and Miliband, despite them both (certainly the former) being light years ahead in the IQ and morality stakes) is because he had pomade in his hair and a designer suit. Not for me Clive. 

 

You could replace Starmer with a caricature called Paul Yorkshire and get him to just talk about how he hates Thatcher and he'd pick up votes from the same vocal but ultimately small faction, but wouldn't win an election. Not that I'm saying Starmer will either on this showing, but still. 

 

I'm not sure it is a small faction. I think the "good to have a pint with" perception gains millions of votes with the criminally thick. The Tory vote will drop like a stone in Brexit towns when Johnson is replaced.

 

Starmer's serious and sensible shtick will work well with "liberals". It'll convince volvo nonce and a few lib demmy types to defect to Labour, and this is extremely important as lots of marginals are decided by these people. But I do think that Starmer seeming to be really fucking boring will be very detrimental. Blair read the time/era very well. 

 

Starmer needs to get himself on a Paddy Power advert or start one of those "challenges" which just involve someone being an annoying cunt on social media.

[Rushies tash]

8 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Did any of you think that Corbyn wasn’t dull? He was awful. 

I don't think he was a particularly effective leader at all. Principled, yes (and that's what resonated with those on the left, including me), but weak when it came to the shit being thrown at him.