Main Edition
US
FR
September 26, 2024 - 10:00am
“I’m team Sue.” Nothing better captures the extent of the Labour Left’s defeat than that three-word sentence I heard at the party’s conference this week. Five years ago Labour’s progressives and socialists believed their movement could stop Brexit, herald a new era of public ownership, and break with US-led foreign policy. Today, by contrast, the same people — if they remain in Labour at all — have been reduced to cheering on a former civil servant.
Their decision to do so is not without reason. Sue Gray, like Keir Starmer, is viewed as a relatively anodyne, technocratic figure — someone who simply wants to execute on a policy agenda with glimmers of social democracy. Unlike Morgan McSweeney, with whom she is allegedly locking horns, Starmer’s chief of staff is not a campaigner. Her political skillset is that of government, not the ballot box. For Starmer to succeed, he will need both Gray and his head of political strategy pulling in the same direction. Right now, the opposite is happening. That was the background to a strange few days in Liverpool.
The best way to describe this year’s conference was that it felt exactly like the year before: a groundhog day of lanyards, corporate brochures and Madrí. Besides the vacuum on policy, which now typifies the party’s annual jamboree under Starmer, there was also an absence of expectation, let alone euphoria. “We’ve completely fucked it,” as one staffer put it to me. There were more smiles 12 months ago.
All the media wanted to talk about were freebie glasses, donor-funded birthdays and Taylor Swift concerts. That was primarily due to the hypocrisy of Labour’s leading lights, but it’s also because the Government hasn’t given them much else to talk about. Starmer’s reluctance to advance a substantial vision, with the policy programme that might entail, means journalists now set the media grid. Doing little beyond criticising the Tories worked well in Opposition. In office, it appears to be catastrophic.
That isn’t to say Labour doesn’t have a plan. Speaking at a panel on Monday, Josh Simons — formerly the chair of Labour Together and now MP for Makerfield — declared Starmer would be judged on his ability to deliver change over a parliament. What really mattered wasn’t the trivial fluff of the media cycle, but improving NHS outcomes, generating growth and getting a grip on law and order. Address just some of those, Simons insisted, and Labour would win another large majority.
It’s a compelling message. Yet Simons was most intriguing in his dismissal of “vested interests” — a term which seemingly ranged from pensioners upset at higher heating bills to those protesting against the war in Gaza. Against such vested interests, Simons said Labour must speak for the “silent majority”. But there’s a problem with minority interests if you take them on all at once: you find yourself marginalised.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe problem is social democracy itself. As the state expands and centralises so it attracts more and more parasites until, eventually, the vested interests are consuming all the resources and the sick and poor are left to fend for themselves.
The soundtrack to which New Labour took power may have been Oasis and D:Ream – but this time around it’s Vince Dale and the Grifters.
And the Autocrats and Theocrats don’t have huge tails of the party or religious faithful basking in their privileged, sclerotic place in a mafia state?
Which form at least gives you a vote and more accountability?
“Which form at least gives you a vote and more accountability?”
Neither
Do you even know what social democracy is? Or do you know and thought you’d just waste my time with that pointless whataboutary?
Which form at least gives you a vote and more accountability?
Democracy. (which is not the same thing as ‘social democracy’)
Obviously.
What!!??
The two faces of the global Left:
1. Anodyne Techocrat
2. Mentally ill progressive narcissist
“What was missing from Simons’s analysis, and the conference more widely, was any understanding that ideology is necessary to achieve political transformation.”
Starmer does have an ideology, but he kept it under wraps during his Ming vase approach to the election and we have only begun to see glimpses of it since, though if you go back far enough it is much clearer. The problem is his ideology is a disastrous one (which is why he won’t expose it in full), which will see mass migration continue (he is ideologically committed to it, which is why he uses the far right thugs rhetoric to avoid even discussing it) and our economy shrinking under the burden of high energy prices, high taxes, bureaucracy and new workers rights, which discourage companies from employing British people.
Forget ideology. All he has to do is fix the NHS, stop the boats and fill in the potholes. He’ll be a shoe-in come the next election.
None of which he’ll achieve.
Correct but the reason why he won’t achieve them, even though he might claim he wants to, is because his ideology runs counter to achieving them.
I doubt that the NHS is fixable, by anyone.
Since when did real socialists want to stay in the Bankers’ Union?
The plan for Starmer et al is to spend 5 years in power, develop a reputation at Davos and then take up a sinecure in the NWO. That explains why none of Starmer’s cabinet are opposed to Sue Gray earning more than the PM.
It’s a good plan!
Charles Clarke was a “heavy hitter”? I must have been misinformed— I thought he was a self-important nonentity.
Perhaps he meant John Prescott ?
It’s not remotely surprising that the author of this piece regards ‘ideology’ as pivotal to the way the world works. Anyone with actual experience of government and with the design and delivery of policy in the real world would probably have a rather different view on the importance of ideology.
As soon as i read that from Bastani, the problem became crystal clear. Ideology is for students and idealists, and leads to real world dissonance. It’s also not that Starmer doesn’t have an ideology, he hasn’t even got any ideas. If he had, we should’ve heard about them; instead, he’s getting battered from pillar to post by real world events that the expression on his face was almost designed to portray: “mystified”.
Any “ideology” of his is borrowed from WEF. But like you say, he has no idea on how to implement it, especially in the face of a recalcitrant public.
Ideology is the technical term. Use another if you don’t like it. A big-picture approach, whatever. But whatever you call it, we need an in-depth analysis of what’s wrong, including: what’s causing the wrong things, the common factors linking the wrong things, and a practical programme for putting the wrong things right. Starmer hasn’t got it; I hope someone has.
“What you have is an ideology. I on the other hand, am a simple pragmatist responding only to the dictates of common sense, universally understood.”
Has been the mating call of conservatives (big and small C) forever. The positive hostility to introspection is quite useful for building a big tent party because everyone from David Gauke to John Redwood appears to be singing from the same hymn sheet.
It’s also a handy timesaver in the sense that anyone who genuinely cannot conceive of their own beliefs as an ideology is unlikely to be a very productive person to discuss politics with…
Bastani (and you) are right though, the idea that you can set about the transformation of the country without some sort of an ideology is potty. A transformation has a destination, no? Ideology is how you answer the question about what you’re transforming it into, what costs you are willing to bear in the hope of achieving what goals. What does failure look like?
Starmer cannot, will not answer any of these questions. Speaking as someone quite a long way to his left, I thought I had fully priced in his uselessness. But I have to say that, despite my efforts to lower my expectations, I’ve still been staggered by the sheer political ineptitude of this Government.
How could you go through the entire farce of “currygate” for example, without realising that your every mis-step was going to be blown up into a national scandal? And, if you knew that, why on Earth would you continue sticking your hand out for every freebie that came your way? Come to that, how do you come to spend £18k on suits and not end up with any that significantly better than M&S?
Indeed, the cry against the Conservative is that they don’t have any ideas. But the word conjures up doctrine and dogmatism. Ideology should not be disconnected from the real, temporal and physical world. They should work hand in hand. However, there should be either an overarching belief or merely a managerial machine with maybe a coalition government, which we may see in the near future.
Nooooooh – this can’t be allowed to happen.
The plan is for Sir Janus Flip-flop, Rachel Thieves and their army of Starmtroopers to occupy Banning Street long enough to make such a mess no-one will want graduate progressives near power for at least 2 generations.
The strategy needs 2-3 years to be successful so the people who can actually sort the mess out are ready to do so but this shower are trying to get it done in 2-3 months. It’s just too fast.
Why is everyone in such a rush nowadays?
This is just so authentically and pathetically Labour:
“Josh Simons — formerly the chair of Labour Together and now MP for Makerfield — declared Starmer would be judged on his ability to deliver change over a parliament”
That’s right. Tell people how and when they should have an opinion.
And Bastani then ludicrously gushes about some “compelling message” and that Simons wants Labour to speak up for the silent majority against minority interest groups !!!
It’s almost as if they don’t realise they’ve lost touch with ordinary people and have no self awareness.
Apart from which what on earth does “change” mean. Or imply. Was it a change we wanted? Like immigration or woke culture…
Where did you get the idea that there’s any kind of meaningful ‘Labour Left’ nowadays?
Indeed the leadership has, under cloak, moved so far left there are not many who are even further left.
My test for whether someone is “on the Left” is this: if they say they want to “tax the rich”, they are “on the Left”.
As an aside to his terrible start why have the press not mentioned that Starmer was head of the CPS when it decided NOT to prosecute Al Fayed in 2009 onwards.
Surely Starmer was informed ?
Who would be at the helm if not Starmer?
Angela Rayner, that will go down well with the Labour grassroots and be electoral suicide
I say, Sue Gray couldn’t possibly be possible? She would have to win a seat… awful thought.
Not the right page for woo woo but a psychic has said Starmer would not last a term and a woman would replace him. Hmm maybe prophetic ability is redundant here….
Labour would need to lose a lot of seats. Starmer could be replaced but sitting heads of government are not easy to shift. The independents and the greens are no threat to Starmer (although Jeremy Corbyn’s return to the HoC was important as well as being good news) but if the Tories and Reform unite or agree an electorate pact the next election will be interesting. Providing anyone bothers to vote of course.
I guess Unherd supports plurality of views, even if commie Bastani would have you in prison or executed if he was in charge.
His comments about progressives stopping Brexit (the biggest democratic vote in history of uk),
nationalisation (it worked really well in Soviet Block and China and now in North Korea, Venezuela and Zimbabwe)
and break with USA led world (obviously policy aligned with Moscow, China and Arab terrorism is much better for uk) shows you how pathetic his policies are.
I’m not so sure. Far too early to judge. Thatcher’s ratings plummeted quickly after her win in 79 and story didn’t end there did it. The 24hr media demands a dramatic headline.
Starmer seems to almost revel in being the ‘anti-populist’ and just perhaps he’s onto something. Having led a major organisation he’ll know it takes alot more than a couple of months to get in place the changes you need and he didn’t sort the Labour party instantaneously. The ‘politics’ of ‘it’s water off a ducks back’ has risk, but he’s certainly a more serious politician than we’ve had in a while.
One suspects Labour also caught a bit on the hop by the earlier than expected GE and still playing a bit of catch up in getting the Govt machinery working in directions it needs.
But the tendency of so many of us to gravitate to style over substance how country got into such a mess last few years.
But never forget…Thatcher got lucky and the name of that luck was the Falklands.
Without the Falklands, Thatcher would have been a mere footnote in Tory, and British history.
As Napoleon said ” give me generals who are lucky” but even more as Enoch Powell said ” the roulette wheel of history stopped opposite her number and she did not m**f her chance”.
Luck needs to recognised and the opportunity seized; Starmer doesn’t look like he even recognises his luck, much less any idea how to use the opportunity.
You can manufacture your own luck. Lammy is trying very, very hard to start a war with Russia. But I’m sure he thinks getting nuked for the sake of winning the next election for Labour is a good deal.
Lammy is gold plated moron.
But your comment about getting nuked is just pathetic.
If earlier generations had the same attitude like yours, Soviets would has conquered Europe.
Appeasing dictators like in Munich didn’t stop wider European war.
Going by your name you are of Indian origin.
Why doesn’t India just give up nukes and surrender to any Pakistani demands?
There is a very big difference between us having an arsenal of nukes for our defence and picking needless fights with hostile nuclear capable nations, because Lammy is overzealous in his support for Ukraine for reasons which escape me. Russia is a rogue nation run by a mafia style elite. We should support Ukraine as much as we can to fend of the Russian attack. But giving weapons to Ukraine which they then use on the Russian mainland is very risky, because it is only a couple of steps from an explicit declaration of war. To do such a thing to protect UK interests is completely understandable. To do this for the sake of projecting influence in the Russia – Ukraine war is the equivalent of poking at a hornets nest with a stick – total insanity.
I am certainly of Indian origin, but I have no loyalty to India at all as a nation. How India and Pakistan manage their disputes is their affair. I care about how the UK government behaves, because I don’t want to get nuked here by Russia – however far-fetched the idea may seem to you. Russia is not a rational actor, and you will only know how irrational they are capable of being when they lob a nuke over. At which point, what do you think you will say? ‘Oh, I didn’t think they’d do that’?Followed by ‘Ughhhhhhhh…’, Thud?
I mostly agree, save that I believe Russia is a rational actor. It will use nuclear weapons if it feels its existence is threatened. However the Russian character is paranoid, understandably so, and the point at which it feels an existential threat is unknown.
“Rational actor” and “paranoid” don’t really go together, do they?
They do in the context, although probably “suspicious” would be better…
We need to do that because Russia is the enemy of the Free World, and always will be (well, for the next century at least), and if it isn’t taken down a few pegs now, we will continue to have trouble with it.
Enoch Powell said “m**f”?
Yes he did…the word used to mean “make a mistake” …
I’ve no idea why the algorithm inserted the asterisks in this context.
“how country got into such a mess last few years.”
The rot started under Phoney Blair, who actually inherited a golden legacy from the Major government (admittedly more by accident than by what Major did), but was accelerated by the Tories over the last 14 years. Mass immigration of low skilled workers is a significant contributory factor to all the structural problems we face today from rising crime to shortage of housing to 9.6m economically inactive and NHS collapsing under the demand pressures. I am not saying any or all of these would miraculously be solved by turning down (not off) the taps of migration, because they won’t be, only that there is no chance of even beginning to solve any of them whilst mass low skilled migration continues. That’s the economic side of the argument, the cultural side of the argument leads to an even more frightening prognosis from failing to control migration effectively.
Then there is the issue of energy prices and energy security. Yes both Phoney Blair and the Tories failed to make the real investment needed in Nuclear, whilst p***y footing around with not exploiting our own fossil fuel resources and worshipping at the false altar of renewables, under some pretence that they were being “green”. But Miliband is putting that insanity on steroids. He does not care how much tax payers and fuel bill payers money he wastes on his ill-conceived and totally impractical wind and solar plans. Somehow the start of GB energy, which has not started all we know is it will have an HQ in Aberdeen, is the greatest achievement Starmer is most proud of. GB energy is not going to produce any energy, it is going to waste tax payers money investing in high risk crack pot schemes, like Green Hydrogen, that would never attract stock market investment because they are so high risk and crackpot.
I am old enough to remember to winter of discontent which preceded Maggie’s win in 79. With the way this lot are going I can easily foresee a much worse situation in the winter of 28. The problem is I think by then the structural damage may be so bad that even a reincarnation of Maggie won’t be able to fix it.
Don’t forget about the cost of Covid- £400 billion +. This Labour never mention’s when talking about the mess the Tories left but they agreed to all the lockdowns and associated cost
Sort of agree, unfortunately. Style over substance has plagued our politics starting with Blair. I can also see that the ‘nanny-state approach’ is necessary with a huge number of people. I also like the way Starmer is distancing the party from the unions by giving them large pay rises to avoid conflict.
Two things I can’t agree with, 1) the stifling of all discussion related to the climate and the sheer religiosity of their plans, and 2) the moulding of the police force into a state army. I created a name for the police, the Part Leader’s Obedience Deputies but we can’t use that because the acronym has already been used. So I suggest, the Party Leader’s Obedience Police – the PLOP. Today the PLOP is so far away from its original function that huge amounts of money could be saved by having them all work from home. Then the cars could be sold off and the remaining police stations turned into flats for your immigrants.
Thinkpol.
Which arguably makes the Labour Government IngSoc.
Having led a major organisation …
… whilst being otherwise occupied whenever there was a difficult decision.
Having turned a major organisation to a proctor of rapists and perverts, Starmer believes he understands justice
Did Starmer lead the “major organisation” with transformative flair? Did his charismatic leadership and brilliant original ideas fill the organisation with a renewed sense of bustling purpose? Clearly, you don’t think so , Hugh Bryant. I don’t know. Perhaps someone could enlighten me. Oh, I know he made the organisation more efficient by speeding up electronic processing of cases and by closing a number of branch offices. But more than that?
Yes Sir Starmer ‘ran a big organisation’, but whilst he did he failed to prosecute a very high profile nonce, colluded to keep Julian Assange in detention and did very little to improve the conviction rates of all sorts of criminals – including more nonces, rapists, fraudsters and burglars. The really terrifying thing about him though is his maniac attempts to drag us into a nuclear war. All the rest is just noise.
Thatcher’s ratings dropped because she actually got straight to work on the horribly painful process of national renewal and fixing all the problems which had been ducked for the past 20 years. Rather than just talking a mediocre game like Starmer.
True enough, but prior to the Falklands event she wouldn’t have won a general election. I think the phrase applicable to the state of the nation at the time was ” you can’t handle the truth”.
Having seen the mettle of the woman (metal?…Iron, obviously…) most people realised that there was “no alternative”, and the medicine had to be taken.