by Jonathan Todd
Tom McTague in The Atlantic paints a scenario that should worry Keir Starmer. While Britain’s Covid-19 death toll has risen above 100,000, it may be that a successful vaccine drive leaves a more lasting memory.
After this piece was published, the UK’s vaccine spat with the EU escalated. Poor handling by Brussels leaves the impression that the EU do not like the UK’s vaccine lead, making it easier to spin the UK’s rollout as a Brexit win.
Suddenly, Kate Bingham might seem as likely as anyone else to be the next prime minister. In the meantime, the incumbent has reason to be optimistic about the next 12 months.
While Brexit’s teething problems are painful for those directly impacted, the strong consensus among economic forecasters is that output lost to Brexit in 2021 will be more than offset by gains from lockdown ending and pent up demand being unlocked.
These forecasters have an average UK GDP 2021 projection of 4.4%. Not enough to recover all growth lost in 2020 but our fastest annual rate of growth for over 30 years. Sufficient to make many people feel better about themselves and possibly their government. The resumption of activities now prevented by social distancing – visiting family, drinking with friends, hugging strangers – will also trigger a pervasive positivity in wider senses than the narrowly economic.
Labour should not be complacent about the extent to which the prime minister might make more sense in this context. But – as Dan Pfeiffer often says on Pod Save America – we should worry about everything in politics but panic about none of it.
Now is the time for Starmer to reenergise his leadership’s founding purpose. This is to show that our party has changed from that decisively rejected in 2019 and deserves a mandate to lead our country in a new direction.
That change starts with Labour being clear that we like things that we have spent the past decade allowing voters to believe that we do not: the private sector – it is the engine of the jobs that many voters depend upon; the nations and peoples of the UK – we must exude pride in the country that we want to lead; and the last Labour government – it seems odd that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown make substantive contributions to current policy debates, more so than much of the shadow cabinet, at the same time as Labour remains more associated for many voters with Jeremy Corbyn (whose shadow cabinet Starmer served in) and Ed Miliband (who Starmer has brought back to the shadow cabinet).
Labour’s detachment from Blair and, to a lesser extent, Brown tells voters that we do not like winners, and we represent something different from the only Labour government to have been in power in my lifetime. To voters, especially those who remember when what to do with the Millennium Dome was the UK’s biggest problem, this is weird.
Labour always needs to work twice as hard as the Tories to convince that we back business and will not waste public money. As shadow chancellor, Brown worked tirelessly to improve relations with business and to highlight government profligacy. Doing the same now is more important than advancing complex fiscal rules that voters do not understand and which create hostages to fortune.
Labour should celebrate the private sector’s contribution to vaccines and take the EU’s vaccine missteps as a cue to stop banging on about Europe – as David Cameron once encouraged his party.
Cameron was partially successful in communicating that his party had changed and as Labour seeks our own transformation, we must decline Tory bait to fight culture wars that trap Labour in left-wing cul-de-sacs and Corbynite invitations to retreat to ideological comfort zones from which government cannot be reached.
We rejected that offer by not choosing Rebecca Long-Bailey as leader. We chose a harder, but more rewarding, journey with Starmer: taking the steps necessary to win.
The prime minister might benefit from a flurry of economic activity as lockdown recedes but Labour needs to find a message and message carriers able to persuade that sustained and broad-based improvements in prosperity depend upon a new national direction.
Joe Biden is US president because enough Americans believe that he will run the economy for the benefit of places like Scranton, Pennsylvania, the blue-collar town of his youth, and for main streets, not for Wall Street.
Labour should be braced for the Tories benefitting from vaccines, but the UK’s road of Covid-19 recovery is long and can bend towards a Labour government if Starmer crafts our own version of Biden’s inclusive patriotism and capitalism.
Jonathan Todd is Deputy Editor of Labour Uncut
Tags: Covid 19, gordon brown, Jonathan Todd, Keir Starmer, Pod Save America, Tony Blair
Agree with this article. The Covid pandemic is going to be with us for some time. We are doing well with our vaccination programme mainly because of our NHS – many GP Practices are organising the roll out, but this is not the case for many countries – look at America – how they are unable to reach those most in need, or countries such as India with its vast population. There will also have to be an investigation into the governments handling of the situation. There has been some terrible decisions made, and misuse of public money, as well as a high degree of cronyism- positions going to people who are totally unsuitable.
Agree that Blair and Brown still make prominent contributions but where is Cameron – as they say a one hit wonder – it was he who set the ball rolling with Brexit.
Events have moved on at pace – it seems a distant memory since Corbyn – he did not have the abilities to be a leader, but seemed to be a good MP – and on that note he should have the whip returned.
Starmer and his team are doing well – certainly have more ability – the better team.
More wishful thinking. Well, what other narcotic is there to peddle? Keir Starmer must be eyeing events unfolding in Scotland with great apprehension. According to Simon Heffer, without Scottish votes, Labour could only have won the elections of 1945 and 1997. Only Clement Attlee and Tony Blair had the clout to carry the English electorate along with them. The puff piece by this wannabee Labour leader in Scotland was barely convincing: the usual guff about reconnecting with the people. Yet a significant number of Scots have already reconnected themselves: with the SNP. And, in spite of Johnson’s maunderings, a second referendum is looking increasingly likely. I can’t imagine the ructions surrounding any break-up of the Union doing the ‘Conservative Party’ in England much harm: English nationalism may well rear its ugly head and in a form that most of us would find undesirable.
Other than that, the Left – including the Labour Party, obviously – seems intent on being the gift that keeps on giving, especially when it comes to any kind of ‘progressive’ gibberish. How much harm must a combination of Owen Jones, Toynbee, Izzard, the radical trans lobby etc. be doing to well-meaning would-be Labour candidates the length and breadth of England and Wales?
Then there’s the ongoing perception that Labour handles the national finances badly, that it is entirely opposed to any form of private enterprise unless it lines left-wing pockets, that it is unpatriotic: the list goes on and on.
Labour has its own history and it’s chequered. And the electorate – even some first-time voters – comprehend enough to be suspicious. It used to be fashionable, many moons ago, to speak of ‘Tory anarchy’ as opposed to Labour ‘planning’. But, while the likes of Jenkins and Hattersley were busy filling their bellies and pontificating, some of the ‘ordinary people’ were looking with longing at a bit of modest property ownership.
‘Tory anarchy’? Or a better, more practical understanding of human nature?
Is Starmer able to pivot while doubling down? Just asking.
If Sir Keir wants to propel himself to the cutting edge of English (not British) politics in good time for the next General Election, he will need to follow the example of some of the more hyperactive members of the Scottish National Party. This would involve making even mild dislike of a woman on a Saturday night following several pints of strong lager a criminal offence punishable by twenty years in prison or a fortnight in the company of Mr.Blackford. I do not know where the radical trans community stands in all of this; no doubt they are busy counting their new supply of free tampons.
Opinion Polls for January
YouGov, 04-05 Jan
Con: 39%
Lab: 39%
LDem: 6%
Grn: 6%
Oth/DK/WNV: 10%
Opinium, 06-07 Jan
Con: 39%
Lab: 40%
LDem: 6%
Grn: 4%
Oth/DK/WNV: 11%
SavantaComRes, 08-10 Jan
Con: 40%
Lab: 37%
LDem: 8%
Grn: 4%
Oth/DK/WNV: 11%
Redfield & Wilton, 11 Jan
Con: 41%
Lab: 37%
LDem: 8%
Grn: 5%
Oth/DK/WNV: 9%
Survation, 12-13 Jan
Con: 40%
Lab: 38%
LDem: 7%
Grn: 5%
Oth/DK/WNV: 10%
Opinium, 14-15 Jan
Con: 37%
Lab: 41%
LDem: 6%
Grn: 4%
Oth/DK/WNV: 12%
Savanta/ComRes, 15-17 Jan
Con: 39%
Lab: 37%
LDem: 7%
Grn: 3%
Oth/DK/WNV: 14%
Redfield & Wilton, 18 Jan
Con: 40%
Lab: 38%
LDem: 8%
Grn: 5%
Oth/DK/WNV: 9%
YouGov, 20-21 Jan
Con: 39%
Lab: 38%
LDem: 5%
Grn: 6%
Oth/DK/WNV: 12%
DeltaPoll, 21-23 Jan
Con: 41%
Lab: 39%
LDem: 7%
Grn: 3%
Oth/DK/WNV: 10%
Kantar, 21-25 Jan
Con: 40%
Lab: 37%
LDem: 10%
Grn: 5%
Oth/DK/WNV: 8%
Redfield & Wilton, 25 Jan
Con: 42%
Lab: 37%
LDem: 8%
Grn: 4%
Oth/DK/WNV: 9%
YouGov, 26-27 Jan
Con: 37%
Lab: 41%
LDem: 6%
Grn: 4%
Oth/DK/WNV: 12%
Opinium, 28-29 Jan
Con: 41%
Lab: 38%
LDem: 7%
Grn: 4%
Oth/DK/WNV: 10%
Ave for Jan:-
Con: 40%
Lab: 38%
Lib Dem: 7%
Grn: 5%
Oth/DK/WNV: 10%
Labour down slightly on Dec, Tories up slightly. As Covid starts to wither away now (which it will quite rapidly) the voters attentions will turn to the economy and the Tories are massively in front of Labour in the voters eyes over anything related to the economy. Labour may (falsely) take heart in the 5% Green support, naively thinking they can win them over, but it should be noted that in the 10% of Oth/DK/WNV, 4% support UKIP or Reform Party (BXP’s new guise) and are just as likely to vote Tory as Greens are to vote Labour. By tradition, the Opposition are usually ahead of the government of the day by now in the cycle, so Tory strategists will be well satisfied. Labour’s only route to power is to destroy the Lib Dems in England & Wales, and to beat the SNP in Scotland. That is the only way they will negate the fact that their vote is to concentrated in too few urban seats.
SCOTLAND
SCOTLAND GE 2019
SNP 45%, Con 25.1%, Lab 18.6%, LDem 9.5%, Oth 1.8%
Westminster seats (59):
SNP 48, Con 6, Lab 1, LDem 4
SCOTLAND HOLYROOD 2016
SNP: 46.5/41.7, SCon: 22.0/22.9, SLab: 22.6/19.1, SLDem: 7.8/5.2, SGrn: 0.6/6.6, Oth: 0.5/4.5
Holyrood seats (131): SNP 63, Con 31, Lab 24, SGP 6, SLDem 5
SavantaComRes, 08-13 Jan, Scotland Only
IndyRef2
Yes: 57%, No: 43% (y: 51 , n:38, dk:11 )
Holyrood Only, Const/List
SNP: 53/44%, SCon: 19/16%, SLab: 18/18%, SLDem: 6/8%, SGrn: 0/11%, Oth: 4/3%
Survation, 11-13 Jan, Scotland Only
Westminster Only
SNP: 48%, SCon: 19%, SLab: 23%, SLDem: 7%, Oth: 3%
Holyrood Const/List
SNP: 51/40%, SCon: 19/17%, SLab: 19/19%, SLDem: 9/8%, SGrn: 0/11%, Oth: 4/5%
Holyrood seat projection
SNP 69, Lab 23, Con 19, Grn 11, LDem 7
Panelbase, 19-20 Jan
IndyRef
Yes: 52%, No: 48% (y:44, n:34, dk:7 )
Holyrood Const/List
SNP: 46/41%, SCon: 17/17%, SLab: 15/14%, SLDem: 5/6%, SGrn: 3/7%, Oth: 14/15%
(if you knock will not vote out, the SNP go above 50% in const)
———————————
The SNP continue to dominate Scotland and look on course to increase their grip in Holyrood. Once again, the SNP repeated that they are not interested in Labour’s suggestion of federalization, calling Labour’s offer a pathetic joke and an insult. It is also lragely rejected as an idea by both Yes & No. And again, they repeat they will not ‘prop up’ any Westminster government unless the Section Order is immediately devolved and they can hold an IndyRef within the first year, with no interference from politicians who do not sit in Scottish seats.
WALES
WALES GE2019
Lab 40.9%, Con 36.1%, PC 9.9%, LDem 6.0% Oth 7.1%
WELSH WESTMINSTER SEATS (40)
Lab 22, Con 14, Plaid 4
WALES SENEDD 2016
Senedd, Const/List
Lab 34.7/31.5%, Con 21.1/18.8%, Plaid 20.5/20.8%, LDem 7.7/6.5%, UKIP 12.1/13.0, Grn: 2.5/3.0%, Oth: 1.4/6.4%
WALES SENEDD SEATS 2016 (60)
Lab 29, Plaid 12, Con 11, UKIP 7, Ldem 1
YouGov, 11-14 Jan, Wales Only
Westminster
Lab: 36%, Con: 33%, Plaid: 17%, RP: 5%, LDem: 3%, Grn: 4%, Oth: 2%
Senedd, Const/List**
Lab: 34/30%, Con: 26/25%, Plaid: 22/23%, LDem: 4/4%, RP: 5/4%, Grn: 6/5%, Oth: 4/8%
Senedd Seat Pred: Lab 26, Con 16, PC 15, AA 2, LDem 1
Panelbase, 19-20 Jan
IndyRef
Yes: 47%, No: 53% (y:42 , n:47, dk:11 )
As things stand, the Senedd election will probably result in a Lab/Plaid Confidence & Supply. HOWEVER Plaid are now trying to emulate the SNP and Sinn Fein and are far more robust these days and far far less sympathetic to Labour so suppiort for a Labour government will come with a list of demands.
LONDON
LONDON GE2019
Lab 48.1%, Con 32%, LDem 14.9%, Grn 3.1%, Oth 1.9%
Redfield & Wilton, 13-14 Jan, London Only
Con: 27%
Lab: 48%
LDem: 14%
Grn: 8%
Oth/DK/WNV: 3%
Redfield & Wilton Mayoral, First Preference, 14 Jan.
S. Khan (Lab): 49%
S. Bailey (Con): 28%
L. Porritt (LDem): 11%
S. Berry (Grn): 10%
P. Gammons (UKIP): 2%
NI GE2019
DUP 30.6%, UUP 11.7%, APNI 16.8%, SDLP 14.9%, SF 22.8%, Oth 3.2%
NI Westminster seats (18)
DUP 8, SF 7, SDLP 2, APNI 1
NI Stormont 2017
DUP 29.2%, SF 24.0%, UUP 12.6%, SDLP 12.0%, APNI 7.0%, Oth 15.%
Stormonmt Seats (108)
DUP 38, SF 28, UUP 16, SDLP 12, APNI 8, Grn 2, PBP 2, TUV 1, Ind 1
Lucid Talk, 03-05 Oct
Westminster
DUP 32%, SF 25%, APNI 17%, SDLP 14%, UUP 12% 3%, Grn: 4%, Oth: 2%
Holyrood First Choice,
DUP: 23%, SF: 24%, APNI: 16%, SDLP:13%, UUP 12%, Grn 3%, TUV: 6%, PBP%: 2%, Oth: 1%
LucidTalk, 19-20 Jan
Unification
Yes: 47%, No: 53% (y:42 , n:47, dk:11 )
N Ireland’s desire to remain part of the UK continues. People forget that the Alliance Party is also a unionist party (along with DUP UUP PUP & TUV), and that a hefty chunk of middle class catholics are also unionist.
I wonder if anyone nowadays bothers to read books like Tony Crosland’s ‘Future Of Socialism’? Quite likely not. Modern Labour thinking seems to be rarely subtle – and when it possibly was, in recent years, say during the formative period of New Labour (that kind of Kinnock-Mandelson-Campbell-Smith-Gould-Blair era) it failed to resonate in time for the 1992 election. So, the ridiculous Major won. Anyway, the Falklands effect had faded for Margaret Thatcher, they were less than popular (even in England) thanks to the poll tax and that time sometimes referred to as the ‘Nanny Thatcher Terror’.
Where are Labour’s thinkers and intellectuals now? What – if any – are their big ideas? I should imagine Scotland will have its referendum in 2022, after which will follow a period of turmoil during which Labour will take a further battering. Now, should it lose the next election (which it almost certainly will) it should seriously consider folding its tent and reshaping itself, together with the other ‘progressive’ parties. It would have to be broadly ‘centrist’, realistic rather than childish about the EU, the United States and China, Israel and so on. It would probably be ‘Green Revolution’-ish. Certainly it would have to be nimble in its relations with the private sector whilst acknowledging – of course – that the electorate will accept socialism if its presented to them in the right way (look at the rather unthinking relationship between the public and the NHS, for example). It would look to take on board disaffected Tories. It would appeal to those who take ‘The Guardian’, ‘Observer’, ‘Sunday Times’ and still watch the BBC etc. It would probably need a clever Labour woman like Bridget Phillipson to lead it. It would, needless to say, need a suitable name. It would almost certainly be very interested in PR.
The alternative is, once Scotland has gone, nothing but permanent ‘Conservative’ government – and we can all imagine how that would work out.
Heffers talking nonsense about election
Labour got less votes in England than the Tories in 1974 and 2005 but won with Wales too so even if Scotland was out the equation labour would have had a majority of 11 in the latter
And 2001 labour got 2.5 million more votes than the Tories yes labours msjorory would of been 55 in 2001 but labour would have still got 1.3m more votes than the Tories in that election
And I doubt 1966 would be the same labour got 9.5% more of the vote and a majority of 8 not 94
AJ you’re right Labour were daft for blaming th reel to rate for not voting for us I 1922
I know some black female labour members who do a lot cast @thr_consensus_ who I gave The crossland book too
Thanks for the number crunching Tafia, this is where the real stuff is decided.
Just looked labour got 850,000 more votes than the Tories in Scotland in 2001, which is small of the 2.5m nationally
Semi permanent Conservative government is not necessarily a bad thing. They are he natural party of government and represent the culture of the English much better than Labour. labour can be In office every few years to do some things like bring in a minimum wage etc but leave real long term governing to the Conservatives. Once a Scotland leaves then that is is because even MichaelHoward beat Blair in 2005 in England.
Labour are now being derided for wanting to inject a dose of patriotism into the mix. But didn’t a Labour government send a Hunter Killer submarine to the South Atlantic? Wasn’t Neil Kinnock supposed to quite like clambering over tanks? Herbert Morrison was a great flexer of the old patriotic muscles during his time at the Foreign Office.
Yet somehow I think it won’t wash. Not after Corbyn and Momentum. Angela wrapped up in the union flag? Eddie Izzard as Britannia? Lisa Nandy converted to some form of defensive militarism that might actually be of some use if, say, Northern Ireland were to spark off again? Or would Clive Lewis be sent to try and engage in meaningful dialogue with whoever now represents hard-line Protestantism?
Labour has to strike a balance; therein lies the difficulty. Commitment to some more aggressive pose could be simply digging a hole – especially if Joseph Biden feels the urge to grow a new pair of testicles by launching a few air-strikes in, say, the Middle East. Then Labour could be in trouble – al la Syria. No: Starmer is being bounced around. Focus groups? Very Blairish. But, says some bod in ‘The Spectator’, Starmer must be more like Blair. Must he? Why? I would suggest he carries on being himself, even if his Party loses heavily in the forthcoming elections. No sense in pivoting, twirling, doubling down or examining your face for blemishes in the mirror if it simply gets you a drubbing.
The Hattersley-Rosie Duffield-Andrew Adonis approach is probably the better option. Very few readers of Owen Jones and Polly Toynbee are going to relish the sight of Keir Starmer dressed in his Action Man kit. And they, as much as anyone, are entitled to their view of what the Labour Party should be about: the free play of ideas as formerly expressed in, say, Fabian pamphlets – such as the one in which Roy Jenkins and Douglas Jay debated the pros and cons of what was then the Common Market. Think of the great names of the past: Webb, Cole, Tawney, Shaw.
The overall impression is given of a party floundering and flailing. Then we’re solemnly informed that Keir and Angela know there’s a mountain to climb but feel that they’re on the right road. The trouble is, they set off from base camp, wander round in the dark, then find themselves back at base camp. Even ‘The Guardian’ and the likes of Rentoul seem to be struggling to find something positive and original to say. Blair, whatever his other shortcomings, managed to capture the imagination. I knew plenty of Tories who were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt circa 1994.
I think, John, that Heffer was referring to election victories that gave Labour a stonking majority, i.e. a so-called ‘landslide’. Not sure about 1966, though, without checking back. I think, broadly speaking, that he – Heffer – was on the right track with reference to Scotland.
Would Tafia agree?
Yes, as Dave Roberts says, we are indebted to Tafia for the number-crunching – the more so since Anthony Wells has gone very quiet.
Ah, ‘the economy’. So misunderstood, especially by the ‘saving lives before protecting the economy’ types the left-wing press is so keen on presenting. Possibly they think the average NHS worker never has to fill up with petrol or that they do the job out of the goodness of their hearts.
I’m fairly certain that a nasty dose of inflation will be with us by the autumn. Certain ‘experts’ are urging us to rush into Primark or wherever and begin maxing our credit cards once more. QE. Cheap money. Free money. Double dip recessions. Where will it all end? And what if something even nastier than Covid is waiting just around the corner?
Naturally the subject of money and its uses is never far from the headlines or the average human mind. Plenty of people I know, or know of, are bitterly resentful at not having flown to sun-kissed shores four times a year. Then there is an uncle of mine, who has been on sixteen cruises and is just as stupid and ignorant as he was when he confined his relentlessly working class interests to the amusement arcades of Skegness.
But does anyone suppose we will not have to return, however painfully, to restricting the supply of money? When will people learn again to live within their means?
There is talk now of another ‘Roaring Twenties’. Anyone who thinks of themselves still as a socialist ought to dread such a phenomenon. They also ought to think twice before embracing the idea/possibility of never-ending deficit financing, in spite of what the likes of Stephanie Kelton might say.
The Johnson government has, of course, been dishonest – and economically illiterate. Everyone I know has been happy to sit on their backsides drawing eighty per cent. As for ‘Eat Out To Help Out’, the least said the better. English pubs have been closing down at a rapid rate for years, thanks to changes in the market (i.e. people often prefer to eat and drink at home rather than submit themselves to the whims of lazy, greedy, dirty, indifferent bar staff who couldn’t care less whether you get value for money or not. And it seems the French are acquiring the same reputation).
I once taught the son of a professional economist. ‘You just can’t argue with economics’ is what he told me. Some – including the unions I’ve no doubt – will go on trying.
The funniest thing of all, though, during Covid’s domination of England, has been watching the State getting all huffy because a significant proportion of the population simply won’t do as they’re told. If they didn’t – in spite of ‘Captain Tom’ and the Blitz, rationing etc. during World War Two – they’re certainly not going to do it now, after a half century or more of carefully nurtured ‘individualism’ governing their spending habits, sexual attitudes, consumption of food, drink, drugs, colour TVs, sex toys, hair extensions, foreign holidays, cars and what have you. And, of course, the Labour Party has never really liked people spending their own money in their own way. They didn’t in Attlee’s day and they don’t now.
I’m fairly sure that when my children and their ‘partners’ find inflation (perhaps in double figures) biting them on the arse and the elbow simultaneously they’ll be at a loss for an answer… just for once…
‘Build Back Better, Build Back Fairer. What exactly does that mean, Sir Humphrey’?
‘Well, Minister, I think it speaks for itself. After all, if the government, the Opposition, the unions and the CBI are all climbing onto the bandwagon, there must be something in it.
Mustn’t there, Minister?”
“You tell me. I’m just the idiot who has to try selling it to the public”.
“If I might make a suggestion here, Minister?”
“By all means, Bernard”
“How about putting up a statue to Captain Sir Tom? That ought to take the voters’ minds off things for a bit”.
“An excellent suggestion, Bernard. But where’s the money coming from?”
“The Build Back Better, Build Back Fairer Scheme, Minister”.
“Rubber stamp it then. Sir Humphrey?”
“Fine by me. I’m meeting Jumbo for a quick snort in ten minutes. Shall we adjourn?”
I think there’s at least a possibility that the youth who ‘abused’ Chris Whitty in the street imagined he was a tortoise. The moral outrage in ‘newspapers’ like the ‘Daily Mail’ has been hilarious. I suppose Chris was fortunate not to have his face smashed in. There are a number of people whose faces, if encountered in the street, might suffer from my left hook: Matt Hancock, Piers Morgan, Ian Hislop, to name but three. Frank Dobson used to be high on my list but I believe he might now be dead, so that rules him out.
The media – and a scattering of Labour MPs – are now all over the notion of somehow ‘rebranding’. Well, they had the red, red rose. They had ‘Cool Britannia’. Some yob a week or so ago suggested that Lisa Nandy strip off and ‘oil up’. Sexist nonsense of course. But if Sir Keir were to strip off and oil up it might attract a bigger female and homosexual vote. It would certainly give little Owen Jones something to think about.
A good thing, though, that no-one ever suggested that Jo Richardson or Joan Maynard strip off and oil up. That really would have set the cat among the pigeons.
I am sorry but I simply do not have the time to read anything that AJ writes, however while glancing down I did notice the name Tony Crossland mentioned – his/her assumptions are wrong. I do known of a prominent Labour writer who based their dissertation on the work of Tony Crossland.
Noticed that Starmer had the Union Jack in the background with he gave a speech- now we know that the Union flag in made up of the flags of all parts of the Union – if Scotland achieves independence will the Union flag still have the blue cross of Scotland in its flag?
Managing the economy will be paramount post Covid. However there are also some major problems- education (Williamson has been particularly poor as schools minister), social care – this was particularly hard hit during the pandemic, NHS – will take a very long time to get caught up, also the effects of Brexit are now being felt- Northern Ireland will be an issue as well as Scotland.
Keir Starmer is being written off – even in the pages of the ‘New Statesman’ (which seems to be changing its tune on the EU).
Anne, it’s Crosland. You are perhaps too young to remember him, but some of us grammar school boys have little reason to feel affection for him.
Anne – now we know that the Union flag in made up of the flags of all parts of the Union
Utterly stunning in stupidity. Exactly which part of it relates to Wales then?
Martin Kettle has suggested that Labour’s time may be over and that it will go the way of the Liberals after Lloyd George. I suppose the Liberal Party in the 19th century really was ‘the natural party of government’. Labour, in spite of what Harold Wilson and his supporters may have assured themselves, proved to be nothing of the kind.
The media, in some ways, have been no kinder to Starmer than they were to Corbyn or Miliband. Failure provides entertainment (and ‘click-bait’) and sells a few newspapers. Unlike Miliband, but very much like Corbyn, Starmer still has questions to answer – not least on why he stood by and allowed Momentum to insult the Jews of, not only the UK, but the wider world. Perhaps Miliband should be the one doing the asking.
One can tell, even from a brief glance at the focus group jargon, that someone inside the Labour Party doesn’t believe a word that’s being said, that it’s merely a fishing expedition ,a way of testing the water. In other words, they believe (or half-believe) that ‘working class voters’ will buy into it. Well, some might – but possibly because of other reasons: such as that they voted ‘Conservative’ in 2019 because of Brexit/they thought Boris Johnson was a card/they were too drunk to notice – like Bobby Thompson’s wife – where they were putting their cross. Others, though, will find that when you’ve voted ‘Conservative’ once a second time is less painful. My wife, a former NALGO shop steward, was a rather wet little Leftie when we met but turned into a rabid Eurosceptic before showing some basic understanding – and even belief – in the free market.
Just goes to show.
So it’s Labour’s job to introduce exciting innovations like a minimum wage, is it? Nothing much more? Perhaps Mike is on the right track. The trouble with Labour, though, is that it has a habit of jumping about like a dog with fleas each time it’s ‘in power’ or even gets a sniff of it. I’d be surprised if Tony Blair and his spin doctors ever managed to get a decent night’s sleep. The so-called ‘Conservative Party’ probably isn’t much better of course. I suppose all MPs feel that they must justify their existence. Perhaps only God knows why.
But, Mike, has it never occurred to you that some employers were paying well above the minimum wage before it became fashionable? Then, might some not have given in to temptation? It’s a very good example of the muddled thinking of the EU: neoliberalism spiced up with a bit of half-baked ‘socialism’. Enough to fool people into thinking it somehow ‘progressive’. It isn’t as anyone with an ounce of sense – even the thickest trade unionist – could work out during their tea-break. I went from earning £13 a week in 1976 to earning £80 a week by the summer of 1978. No thought of a minimum wage, just: can you do the heavy work required? Long hours, plenty of overtime. That was for ICI, God bless ’em.
Mind you, I went on to charge a minimum of £25 per hour, plus all additional expenses when self-employed.
A lot of hot air blowing around the pages of the ‘Daily Mail’ this morning. Keir Starmer got something wrong, had a think about it, owned up and apologised. Sturgeon did the same thing a few weeks ago. We also ought to stop nagging away at Lisa Nandy for her views on Churchill. Any non-biased reading of his career shows him to have been less than perfect; possibly Nandy understands this.
I didn’t clap for ‘Captain Tom’, either. The last person I remember clapping for was Ken Dodd.
I see President Macron and France have been found Guilty by the Courts of breaching the Paris Climate Agreement.
The punishment awarded by the Courts? France has to pay the princely sum of one euro (yes, one) to each of the complainants (a group of NGOs including Oxfam & Greenpeace). In addition, the complainants must pay their own costs.
So Biden has signed the USA back into something that nobody bothers with and the Courts treat as a joke. And following the ruling the complainants must pay their own costs, I doubt very much anyone will complain ever again.
A.J. As for ‘Eat Out To Help Out’, the least said the better.
There was absolutely nothing wrong with the Eat Out To Help Out scheme. The failings were caused by customers ignoring the rules and grossly amateurish licensees etc not doing what they were supposed to do and failing to supervise their premises correctly.
Just to remind you, licensees were supposed to hold you at the door, physically take the proper contact details for you, make sure your group was within the permitted size, make sure you remained at your table and did not start mixing with other tables, make sure you were masked at all times except when seated, only provide table service, make sure that chairs from neighbouring tables were no closer than the permitted distance, physically inform you as to how you were to behave while on the premises and automatically expel you on the spot for breaches with no ‘second chance’.
Customers were supposed to hand over the correct contact details, remain seated except when entering, leaving and going to/from the toilets, keep their children seated, not to approach the bar, and wear a mask at all times except when sat down.
Sadly far far too many licensees failed miserably to do their side and far to many custiomers behaving like utter morons.
Incidentally, the scheme was partially resurrected in Wales by Drakefords mob later in the year with far far stricter rules – you had to have ID from an approved list (passport, driving licence etc), verifiable proof of address, had to book a one hour slot in advance handing over your mobiole number at the time of the booking – no turning up ‘on the off chance’, no music, TV, jujke boxes or gaming machines or other entertainments and very tight restrictions on your behaviour on the premises, contactless payments only – no cash. It was policed very very strictly by both plod and the local councils, and any transgressions resulted in you being shut down on the spot and not only not allowed to re-open until the council said, but you were automatically excluded from financial help because it was your own stupid fault. This is an example of just three pubs being hit, all on Anglesey (population less than 70k). There were many more all over Wales https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/three-anglesey-pubs-breach-coronavirus-19158232
Its all gone eerily quiet amid Starmer’s ability to lead a party, or lack of it – what a week he is having. At this rate, they will be calling for the return of the really daft one…Ohhh, Jeremy Corbyn
If only, sighs Owen Jones, Starmer had a long-term vision. It seems only yesterday that journalists were falling over themselves to tell whoever wanted to hear that Starmer’s problem was the Labour Party (you know, all those crazies like Abbott and Foster). Now it appears that the Labour Party’s problem is actually Starmer. Poor chap – not up to the job, you see. Would Rayner, Nandy or Long-Bailey have been ‘up to the job’? One fears not. Perhaps Owen Jones should put himself forward, possibly by accepting a peerage. Or Polly Toynbee. She must have earned a rest by now.
Seriously, though, Clive Lewis is probably closer to the mark. Labour should simply carry on ploughing its lonely, rather freakish furrow, appealing only to the few grubby men in anoraks, excitable BAME types, radical trans activists, a scattering of ‘students’ and anyone else who fancied holding Lansman’s coat while he visited the gents’ toilet. Little point in expecting anyone sensible to join in.
The alternative – such as one exists – is a round of deselections and expulsions, a recognition that Rosie Duffield has something valid to say, a reaching out to the Liberal Democrats, Greens, Plaid etc. (possibly not the SNP), thereby hoping that sufficient numbers of vegans, ramblers, ex-CND marchers, Euro-enthusiasts – oh, and Blairites, naturally – get busy on Twitter in time for the spring elections. The flag-shagging – as someone so vividly described it in a leftie newspaper – appears to be finding less favour than Eddie Izzard at a Proud Boys rally.
Seriously, no-one should despise Labour for being pro-EU. Better that than creeping round a Trump or a Biden. It may be that places like Workington and Bolsover are gone for good. But a swathe of Labour seats, from Sunderland to Canterbury, are still in favour of some European connection.
Looking at China (and, to a lesser extent, Russia) as well as the horrible USA, I cannot bring myself to gloat over the further break-up of the EU, no matter how imperfect it might be.
I suppose a lot of people – and not just a majority of Labour MPs – are still wondering why we were ever railroaded into a referendum on EU membership in the first place. Tony Benn must be partly to blame, for having provided the voting public with a taste for such events. Attlee would certainly have disapproved. So, I think, did Harold Wilson, at least to begin with.
A pity that it had to be Eastern Europeans that came flooding into the UK. Had it been the French, setting up food shops and eating places, I’m sure a lot of us would be delighted. Polish food, I’m afraid, aside from rye bread and the odd jar of pickles, is pretty revolting. Polish girls on the other hand are often highly attractive.
Still, there we are and here we are. Blame Tony Benn, blame Farage, above all blame Cameron. The Labour Party, which threw everything it had at Brussels and Strasbourg, is now hopelessly floundering, a lost cause. Losses in the May elections will almost certainly lead to more mutterings about Keir Starmer. Momentum seem to have gone ominously quiet – for the time being. If there should be a leadership challenge I would suggest that the attractive, articulate, brainy Bridget Phillipson considers throwing her hat into the ring.
Now Andy Beckett pitches in – and some of the Guardianistas respond by pointing out the possible advantages of cosying up to the Liberal Democrats and Greens. Oh, and there are the usual fatuous calls for reform of the voting system. But Labour, aside from the odd figure like Robin Cook, have never been too keen on the abolition of FPTP, have they? More people need to read how Tony Blair succeeded in leading Roy Jenkins and Paddy Ashdown up and down that particular garden path. A canny operator, our Mr. Blair.
Beckett wants to know: how can Labour win again in the South outside London? I would imagine that anyone who can supply him with an answer would be entitled to a free subscription to the ‘New Statesman’ for life; but would begin by suggesting no-one ever takes a blind bit of notice of Owen Jones or Paul Mason.
Ah. A quick look at the comments section following a snide article on Sunak in ‘The Guardian’ is a timely reminder of why Labour carries on losing elections. People commenting in the ‘Mail’ and ‘Express’ are complete imbeciles, but the average Guardianista imagines him or herself to be a bit cleverer than thee or me, owd duck. Like the gravestone that proclaims ‘Not Dead, Only Sleeping’, they are fooling no-one but themselves.
There is a strong whiff of racialism present, which they would deplore in any ‘Sun’ reader, plus the usual envy at a chap like Dishy being richer and better-looking than themselves.
Yes, indeed, a timely reminder.
Oh dear, now Ms.Dodds seems to have gone and put her foot in it. ‘Spin’ indeed!
Starmer – or whoever – could have a whole lot of fun out of Boris Johnson’s absurd plan to allow pubs to reopen in the spring whilst offering only pineapple juice with the regulation Scotch egg.
Elsewhere, we read that bossy, ignorant, interfering ‘Tory’ ministers – and, doubtless, those who fawn and cringe around them – are about to launch a campaign telling people like me (and possibly you) to avoid junk food, take more exercise etc. etc. I shall give this some serious thought whilst drinking my pre-luncheon Ricard, carefully tending my sliced potatoes gently fried in butter and olive oil whilst the Scottish beef steeped in red wine simmers gently in the oven. I shall also make certain – if I know it’s going to bring a frown to Matt Hancock’s face – to eat more than my fair share of pizza, garlic bread, cheesburgers etc. etc.
If it wasn’t so difficult to get my favourite French cigarettes, I’d think of taking up smoking again.
Of course Labour – Starmer – whoever – won’t do anything. But how can they expect the public to pay attention when the yob Johnson and his chums have stolen all their socialistic clothing?
New tory poster
Richard Burgon- Are you Patriotic? are you working class ,? The Conservative party is the party for you
the bloke who said to Andrew Neil “Ed Miliband is to good for this f@cking country”,
who ran Milfans summed it up when he said that he thinks if he’s too good for labour to run it, it mean the public were right to think labour is not for them
A glance at a couple of the letters in ‘The Observer’, responding to Hattersley’s tired, fatuous nonsense, is suggestive of the cloud-cuckoo paradise some Labour supporters inhabit. ‘Equality’, ’empowerment’ and the entire panoply of hot-air fuelled gibberish.
Then, however, we have that noted egalitarian ‘Charlie’ Falconer apparently caught out either trying to cash in on Covid – something that can safely be left to Johnson, Hancock and their chums – or, worse, applauding the changes in the law that have made the lives of UK citizens that much more difficult.
I’m not too concerned with young Starmer rabbiting about the abolition of the monarchy. That’s only the playground twaddle we’ve come to expect from Labour toddlers too stupid or lazy to find out about how well a Wilson or a Callaghan got on with The Queen.
Oh, yes, and John McDonnell might be with us again, if Labour are hammered in May.
Poor Starmer. One could almost feel sorry for him if he wasn’t such an obvious greaser on the make, reminding me somewhat of the horrors to be seen on the government benches between 1979 and 1997. So, is he Left? Is he Right? Is he ‘Centrist’? Is he a ‘Blairite’ (whatever that’s supposed to mean nowadays)? Is he a republican? Does he even have a command of the Queen’s English or does he pivot, unpack, double down, trash everything, suffer from the occasional uptick, like Michael Gove? At least you knew where you were with Corbyn. You knew you were going to hear the same pious, meaningless drivel every time he clambered onto a platform, just as every time Miliband went on TV you were in for eye-rolling and proclamations of this and that being ‘unfair’.
Brown was also a bullshitter, flip-flopping according to whether it happened to be raining or fine on that particular day.
So now we approach the exciting May elections, when the usual collection of freaks and losers compete with one another to see who will be the Exclusive Cabinet Member For Clearing Up Dog Shit In The Park or boss the public around using the so-called police as their tool (a failed Momentum arse-licker in our particular shire). That waste-of-space Rentoul suggests that Labour might be entitled to open a bottle of Tizer the morning after. Most others predict an early shower after being sent of the park.
Watch this space.
Here’s a set of interesting polls, charting Labour’s consistent decline amongst BAME voters since GE2019.
2019 General Election
Lab: 64%
Con: 20%
LDem: 12%
Grn: 1%
SNP: 2%
Oth: 1%
(Lab lead 44%)
NCP 09-27 Oct
Lab: 60%
Con: 22%
LDem: 5%
Grn: 5%
SNP: 2%
Oth: 3%
(Lab lead 38%)
NCP 25 Jan-01 Feb
Lab: 58%
Con: 22%
LDem: 6%
Grn: 8%
SNP: 2%
Oth: 4%
(Lab lead 36%)
There are mahny convulated reasons for this, all of which present ‘dead-end’ challenges for Labour and do not affect the Tories at all. Two decades ago, Labour support amongst BAME was over 65% so over time it has shown a steady, on-going and significant decline.
There are several readsons recently. One is that the BAME community tends to be more socially conservative and strong on ‘family values, consisting of a higher percentage not only of non-white Muslims, Jews, Hindus & Sikhs etc, but also Christian groupings such as Pentacostalists. These sort of religious groupings tend to regard Labour’s obsession with gender politics, abortion etc as a direct onslaught on their family, religious and community beliefs.
Black Lives Matter. Other BAME groups such as the Asian communities regard Labour’s obsession with BLM as discriminatory against them as BLM is an almost exclusively black group as opposed to a minority ethnic group, and is far to reactionary/revolutionary left wing. The non-black elements of BAME regard Labour leaders ‘taking the knee’ as bordering on disgusting.
Aspiration. The BAME groupings want to own houses, buy cars, get their kids into better schools (including public & private), become self-employed and/or start their own business, move out into the suburbs etc etc. These are things they now aspire to and regard Labour as a threat to as they believe Labour will put taxes up which in turn will slow down their acquisition of ‘wealth’ and/or ability to acquire it and their rise in status..
Law & Order. BAME groups tend to be very very strong on law and order – particularly punishment, and they see Labour as weak and far to concilliatory with criminal elements. Contrary to popular belief, they are also strongly anti-drug (including cannabis) and do not believe they should be de-criminalised or ‘accepted’, quite the opposite – they believe they should be stamped on with increasing severity and ferocity until it is brought under control. Included in this is street gangs – which tend to plague BAME metropolitan areas, which in turn tend to be Labour-dominated. They want more direct policing – including S&S profiling – oin a BAME area, the single biggest threat to a young black male is another young black male, and they want these gangs confronting and defeating before their kids get sucked in and/or stabbed.
———————–
Personally, I do not know if they class our resident east europeans as BAME but if they do, that will be a large part of the problem for Labour. I live in an area ‘rich’ with them and work with loads of them. Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, Bulgarians and ones from the Baltic states tend to be ultra-conservative in political outlook, probably because of their mostly Catholic/Lutherian/Orthodox heritage and the disastrous left wing economic policies inflicted on them during the Soviet era. They not only do not trust left wingers, they despise them. Romanians (particulalrly Roma Romanians as opposed to ‘white’ Romanians) tend to be more accepting of Labour probably because they tend to be the poorer element.
I’m sure, if Tony Benn was still alive, he’d have Lord Falconer down as a proper Charlie.
So much for Sir Keir’s latest ‘pivot’ – also known, I suppose, as a politician shifting from one strategic position to another.
The ‘patriotic’ wheeze is another ‘gift that keeps on giving’ as journalists in the ‘Daily Express’, ‘New Statesman’, wherever you like, continue to hold the thing up to the light and shake their heads in complete disbelief. Malik is at it this morning in ‘The Guardian’ (and touching upon one or two good points; well done, Nesrine). But then all the lurking Guardianistas come tumbling out of the closet after eating their wheatyflakes to give the casual reader the benefit of their thoughts and feelings. I hadn’t realised, for instance, that World War Two was fought partly to rid the world of ‘homophobia’. We live and learn. More commonplace of course is ‘Tory Scum’. It wasn’t very helpful to Labour when Bevan used to bang that drum and I don’t suppose it is now.
Amusingly, we can see Sir Kneel in various poses: doing his stuff before HM The Queen, then – some time later – for the hashtag Marxists of the BLM brigade. Tells us all we need to know. Another establishment figure playing political rebel. Labour’s past is littered with them, from at least MacDonald onwards. (No, Anne, nothing to do with chicken nuggets and large fries).
I think – believe – his days are numbered – unless a miracle occurs. Frankly, I think I’d prefer John McDonnell.
Oh dear, has Rachel Reeves taken on the unofficial role of Shadow Minister For Thumbing The Nose And Jumping Up And Down About Cronyism? ‘The Guardian’ brings us the exciting news that a Labour government would launch a programme of massive ‘insourcing’ of so-called ‘public services’. Labour, as we know – it’s one of the reasons the electorate loves and trusts them so much – would never dream of indulging in a bit of cronyism for themselves. Perish the thought.
Labour should be highly relieved that so many of its supporters and sympathisers have not yet graduated to reading newspapers let alone books and are stuck at the Harry Potter/Disneyworld stage of development. Heaven forbid they should get to learn anything about the likes of T.Dan Smith or discover the meaning of QUANGO. Is that not what we are being told, in another newspaper, the NHS has turned into?
Didn’t Tony have a few ‘cronies’? Naming no names, eh, Charlie?
It seems possible that Sir Keir Starmer will be giving Andrew ‘Andy’ Burnham the stinkeye if a report in the ‘Daily Mail’ is anything to go by. Mr. Burnham – who often appears, like the Mayor of London, to forget what a collar and tie are for – became briefly famous when his wife pointed out to him in a supermarket just how much sugar there was in a box of the average breakfast cereal. Oh, yes, he also lost out a few years ago to one J.Corbyn and scooted off to become ‘King O’Noth’, telling someone – the witless berk – just how much he likes pie, chips and gravy. Now Sir Keir knows what he has to do in order to win back ‘Foundation’ seats: defy Hancock, order all the pubs to be reopened, race up to Longsight or Levenshulme and stand a round of pies all round. The working man will instantly warm to him.
Provided there is no upper age limit, a good many of our politicians could yet find a way of annoying the public by becoming PCSOs; especially in fun places like Manchester and Birmingham. I don’t know how much the successful applicant can expect to get paid but they would at least get to wear a bright yellow vest, which must count for something.
On the other hand, Sir Keir Starmer – who used to be a lawyer or so I’m told – could use that portion of his brain that functions by having a quiet word with the Home Secretary about the relationship between police and public. It’s the kind of thing that might have happened in the past, when MPs had greater status than the average member of a County Council.