Nice piece, if a little harsh - Starmer has made his share of fumbles but primarily he's the victim of historical forces that few could overcome. Labour is polling badly but the Tories are much worse. Across the Channel even Macron, the outstanding European statesman of his generation, is floundering.
The migration issue has broken a large and growing share of the public's trust not only in the centre-left, but in the entirety of mainstream politics, media and even judicial institutions. Anyone who looks like an 'establishment type' - which is all of them, because it's a requirement to rise in a mainstream party - is doomed. The next five to ten years is the Nigel Show, and the media will adapt or die.
On the left, a small but well-organised group of people have realised that woke has failed. Instead of adjusting to reality, they're spiralling into conspiracy theories where every harm in the world is connected, and is caused by shady big business, 'colonialism', and the Jews (sorry, Zionists). They've lost the public but they can still influence centre-left parties and established media and academia.
Starmer's strategy appears to be resorting to platitudes and avoiding any commitment to a political position. It's not working, but I can't honestly think of a better alternative. Pity the man, and pity the nation.
I like you James but this is a misreading imo. I’ve never bought the idea that Starmer is a particularly serious man or politician, or that he is let down by an unserious electorate, who never speak with one voice but are always made up of competing interests who can be mobilised for this or that political agenda.
Starmer’s is totally ill equipped to do mobilising of any kind, doesn’t seem to have any political ideas, and above all can’t communicate in a way that makes sense to the electorate. Mostly, he is a creature of the media- political Westminster complex and its led by its every orthodoxy, which is fatal in an age of anti-establishment decline. There exist many serious issues which need dealing with but Starmer doesn’t have the requisite serious politics to offer serious solutions to them.
Starmer’s successes have mostly been in internal Labour wrangling as he screwed over the Labour left and sidelined the membership. Corbynism had many faults and I realise I’m in a bit of an anti-leftist space here, but I do think the legacy of his one clear ‘success’ will be to permanently delegitimise Labour as a force for good in the eyes of left leaning voters like myself.
I’d take a left critique of Starmer more seriously if I felt that it had ever been fair; in fact, even in the immediate aftermath of October 7th, rhetoric against him and his culpability was off the charts from the left. Notice the sign I saw was seen in December 12th last year - the broader left has just been waiting to call the guy a child murderer. And let’s be clear, this isn’t a normal thing to accuse someone of, and I’m not sure where it leaves any debate, and the Corbynite left reached, and still reaches for that level of hatred almost immediately.
What particularly rankles is that so much of the left that is disgruntled with Starmer said for years that with Corbyn, all they wanted was mainstream social democracy. Well, Starmer is exactly where the mainstream of European social democracy is at the moment, down to the bearish tone on immigration; domestically, this Labour government is investing more and doing social democratic things. It is strengthening employment protections and rental rights. It is building new towns.
And yet none of it figures - there isn’t any nuance in the left critique of Starmer, and hasn’t been from day one. There isn’t any relationship between Starmer and what his critics are making of him, in part because of his own political ineptness, in part because of his opponents’ bad faith. If I could adopt García Marquez, for Starmer and the left, it has always been a ‘Chronicle of a Betrayal Foretold’. However, I’d also raise that the piece is pretty critical of Starmer himself, and particularly that his idea that he is hear to restore ‘sanity’ is its own form of delusion. Still, he got elected, and I’m not sure many of his critics are serious about that. Within a democratic system, power without a willingness to compromise is just participation. And I think the broader anti-Labour left is only really interested in making the noises it likes, rather than actually improving people’s lives.
Thanks James, for this good and considered response. There’s two issues - Starmer’s seriousness, and secondly the left critique.
On the latter - there are many problems with the left (I’ve never been a fan of Corbyn), but I’m not sure you can treat them with the nihilistic sadism that McSweeney and the Labour right did, from 2015 onwards, and expect them to be critical friends. (See Paul Ovenden’s weird sexualised aggression towards Diane Abbott for an example of what is certainly the tip of the iceberg).
As for the domestic agenda, it’s nowhere near enough given the rut we’re in. Even Michael Gove wanted to do something about the way renters are treated in this country. The UK has got a lot wrong over the last 40 years and needs a different course, which Starmer isn’t setting and doesn’t seem to believe is necessary.
On the former I think you give examples yourself of his lack of seriousness, on brexit, immigration and tax. Boxing himself in over tax is the perfect example of how he’s not what he’s sold as - playing Westminster parlour games for short term advantage over serious analysis of the country’s problems.
Thanks Tulse again. My view is that in 2019 the left had driven Labour into a ditch, and anyone coming in had to absolutely get the left as far away from power as possible. They'd effectively run the Labour Party as a student debating society for years, and the EHRC report dropped on Starmer's watch too, a truly shameful event in the party's history which as far as I can see the Corbynite left barely acknowledge, except by accidentally betraying the extent of the problem.
As you say, my critique of Starmer is pretty clear that I don't think he's agile or improvisational enough to make the political weather. I also think the left is currently kidding itself that there is a huge reservoir of untaxed wealth in the UK which can usher in a bigger welfare state and higher standard of living. The tax burden in the UK is higher than in decades and the moves to tax the wealthier are just seeing money leave London.
The truth is the UK is becoming a much poorer country, and I think a useful left analysis has to start from there, rather than moving out the last drying slices of a decaying pie while pretending there's a lovely chocolate fondant still in the fridge.
What makes me most annoyed about Starmer is the obsession with reelection, in the UK you have this incredible blessing of 5 year terms and very few veto points that can block parliament
You can change a country in 5 years
LBJ ended segregation, passed Medicaid Medicare and the Great Society in 5 years and still had time for a disastrous war in SE Asia
Attlee set up the welfare state and nationalised industry in his 5 years all while recovering from WW2 (a black hole slightly bigger than $28 billion)
Even Thatcher pushed through most of what we think of as Thatcherism between 83 and 88
If Starmer had kicked out the campaign team and just set about changing the country, ignoring electoral calculus, who knows the public might just have rewarded him for it in 2029 anyway
Thanks for the article, really appreciated. My feeling is that the media is playing a much bigger role than you assign to them. Yes, Starmer could perform a more convincing version of himself in front of the cameras. Yes, the voters could be less silly and better informed. But in the current media environment I'm not convinced that either would make a difference.
It feels to me as if most media - old and new, mainstream and fringe - are training us to mistrust and hate politicians. It's the media, more than the politicians or the voters, who are the distorting lens that prevents either side from seeing each other clearly.
Insightful observation that you don't have to be a political extremist to take illogical or immoral positions. Getting too deep into politics makes anyone dumber and meaner. My apologies to most of you.
Undeniably interesting, and aided, I think, by being able to view the whole national car crash from the other side of the channel. You’ve certainly triggered some passionate responses from some people, particularly those who disagree with you, though one or two of them seem to prove some of your points for you.
I think you are right in characterising Starmer as a politician unsuited to the age. There probably is a decent, caring human being in there, but he has proved incapable of dealing with the challenges thrown at him, from within his party (he has allowed himself to be guided too much by Morgan McSweeney and has presided over the sidelining and expulsion of many a decent, hardworking member of the base which got him the gig in the first place) from the hysterical media, and from the increasingly fantasist MPs who oppose him in Parliament. He has of course been given an almost impossible task after several years of criminal negligence from the Tories, but his failure to express a coherent alternative narrative with which he can assert himself and his government make him look hopelessly unsuited to the challenge.
Can he turn it around? I suspect it may already be too late, though I don’t agree with your friend that we are in for ten years of the ‘Nigel show,’ as I’m not sure, when push comes to shove, whether the nation will vote Reform in sufficient numbers to enable them to form a government. Nor am I convinced that Farage, sensing the possibility of victory and the hard work which would follow it, will actually stick around that long.
Our best (or most realistic) hope next time is probably a hung parliament, which might produce a ‘coalition of the willing’ to oppose the lunacies of the far right, and, even better, might finally be persuaded to bring about a more proportional system of election.
People have got to come to their senses eventually, haven’t they?
I thought being abroad might be an impediment to seeing things fairly, but glad to see that's not the case for you.
I do think a large part of the nuttiness abroad comes from trying to filter multiparty politics through a binary system, and welcome anything that gets us away from that.
The level of Starmer hate does seem out of all proportion to the blandness of the man himself. Perhaps the only leaders the Great British Public are willing to countenance are those as absurd as themselves.
So many bald an unsupported assertions even in the first paragraph that really don't stand up to scrutiny:
He's in the pay of grooming gangs
- No, he actually *was* the man in charge when Saville was not prosecuted. That's a fact, it's not up for debate.
Starmer has personally enabled genocide.
- He is the PM of a country that is supporting Israel materially, logistically and rhetorically. He has overseen a massive crackdown on the right to protest directly connected to this. Again, these are uncontroversial facts.
He's 'tacked to the centre'.
He has overseen the expansion of privately giverned special economic zones. He intends to massively expand military spending. He is using anti-immigrant rhetoric and harder policies and penalties for asylum seekers. He is cracking down in the right to protest. His government is, by British standards, highly authoritarian in approach, both in terms of internal and external governance.
His government is openly corrupt - high numbers of gifts accepted, wholly dependent on large donors and openly courting the takeover of key sectors of the UK by private interests. Palantir in the NHS, BlackRock for key infrastructure.
These are unsupported and right wing standpoints.
He has openly and repeatedly lied to the electorate.
To suggest that the only reason people are critical of this stuff is because he 'isn't Jeremy Corbyn' is insulting to the intelligence of your readers.
A paragraph of your work and you can rest assured I'll never be reading it again.
Go on then. Which statements were inaccurate? BlackRock isn't heavily invested in UK infrastructure? The UK isn't supporting Israel? Starmer wasn't DPP? Which ones were inaccurate?
Reading from Ireland and a former member of the British Labour Party I found it interesting and insightful if somewhat depressing and eerily familiar to the Brown premiership where his presumption that the public would reward his genuine patriotism by putting the country first by saving the banks was proved wrong in 2010.
Labour in Government seems unable to mobilise a campaigning activism within the party and beyond to sell the benefits of Labour. And this is another. Starmer acts and sounds like the head of the Civil Service or CEO not the leader of the sixth largest economy in the world
I think this makes good arguments against criticizing starmer from the left (which afaict are the main audience of this piece), but not from the right. I agree starmer has given the left pretty much everything he realistically could, but that just opens him up further to legitimate criticisms from the right or center.
I don’t think it's really a Labour PM's job to keep the right happy. Besides, my argument is that a good part of the right's objection to him is for trends they themselves set in motion.
"the idea of deporting people who have lived here for decades, for example"
The term is "indefinite leave to remain". Indefinite means: there is no time. It isn't a temporary visa for a period, nor is it citizenship for life. And it is supposed to lead to citizenship, not remaining on temporary leave to remain for life.
What's your time limit? Someone arrives illegally in the back of a truck, works in the black economy. How long before they automatically get citizenship? 5 years? 10?
I'm not proposing automatic citizenship for anyone. What Reform has proposed is revoking ILR for people already granted it if they no longer meet income thresholds. This is a recipe for chaos and plunging people into anguish and uncertainty.
On your other points, not every country allows Dual Citizenship, so ILR offers people who do not have the option to take it the right to reside long term in the UK without giving up their existing citizenship. I don't believe we should require people who become British to give up their existing times to their home country.
Aren't you? What's the difference between granting people permanent right to remain and citizenship, other than perhaps the right to vote?
And how is it chaos? I presume Reform's plan doesn't mean just turfing people out in the middle of the night, but some sort of notice period of a few months to end leases, arrange transport.
"I don't believe we should require people who become British to give up their existing times to their home "
Which country are they going to fight for in the event of war?
"this is an entirely separate matter than reversing Brexit – public discourse can acknowledge that the project of withdrawal from the European Union has not gone well."
How much of the grandfathered EU law has been changed? Almost none of it. We are still, to nearly all intents and purposes, following EU law. We have gained none of the advantages of being outside, where we could end trade barriers, enjoy cheaper goods, supply goods and services that other countries in the world might want (but which the rest of the EU doesn't allow).
Both of the main parties have shown zero interest in pursuing this since officially leaving. Because the truth is, they just want back in, not to make agreements in Britain's interest.
Britain's interests are global. We mostly trade outside the EU. We import lots from them, in which case, they can bend to us if they want to sell. Or, we just make cars from Korea and Japan zero tariff and flood our market, and VW and Renault can go squealing to Brussels about making a deal.
We're still aligned to them on the cast majority of regulations because we need to continue selling to them. The EU remains our biggest trading partner and the centre of our geopolitical interests; country's don't choose their neighbourhoods.
In addition, there is at preseng no substantial public appetite or mandate for deviating significantly from either European legislative standards or the European social model.
The truth is a narrowly tho clearly won referendum almost ten years ago isn't a large enough mandate for the kind of radical reorganisation of Britain's economic model which would make Brexit worth doing. That mandate will have to be obtained separately; perhaps Reform can indeed win on 'True Brexit' has never been tried.
You don't need to align with a country to trade with them. You just have companies producing products and services that are compliant.
For example, to run a clinical trial website in Canada, it has to be in both English and French. We don't insist on all websites being in English and French for all websites produced by drug trial companies in the EU. You can just accept the laws at the point of trade. Which is how it should be.
None of this is about a "radical reorganisation". Trade has shifted over 40 years. What we sell, and where. Hardcore remainers still think like it's the 1980s. That this is the centre of our economic interests, and it isn't. We export more to the rest of the world now. We import a lot from the EU. So, we should negotiate from that position: we can do a lot more damage to VW and Burgundy producers than the EU can do to stilton makers. Why would we pay to be in a club, why would we take unfavourable terms, when the EU needs us more than we need them? If you're selling something, you take the client out for lunch, not the other way around.
Nice piece, if a little harsh - Starmer has made his share of fumbles but primarily he's the victim of historical forces that few could overcome. Labour is polling badly but the Tories are much worse. Across the Channel even Macron, the outstanding European statesman of his generation, is floundering.
The migration issue has broken a large and growing share of the public's trust not only in the centre-left, but in the entirety of mainstream politics, media and even judicial institutions. Anyone who looks like an 'establishment type' - which is all of them, because it's a requirement to rise in a mainstream party - is doomed. The next five to ten years is the Nigel Show, and the media will adapt or die.
On the left, a small but well-organised group of people have realised that woke has failed. Instead of adjusting to reality, they're spiralling into conspiracy theories where every harm in the world is connected, and is caused by shady big business, 'colonialism', and the Jews (sorry, Zionists). They've lost the public but they can still influence centre-left parties and established media and academia.
Starmer's strategy appears to be resorting to platitudes and avoiding any commitment to a political position. It's not working, but I can't honestly think of a better alternative. Pity the man, and pity the nation.
I thought this was an insightful comment:
https://x.com/si_rubinstein/status/1976558848677728321?s=46
People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis, you can't trust people, Jez.
I like you James but this is a misreading imo. I’ve never bought the idea that Starmer is a particularly serious man or politician, or that he is let down by an unserious electorate, who never speak with one voice but are always made up of competing interests who can be mobilised for this or that political agenda.
Starmer’s is totally ill equipped to do mobilising of any kind, doesn’t seem to have any political ideas, and above all can’t communicate in a way that makes sense to the electorate. Mostly, he is a creature of the media- political Westminster complex and its led by its every orthodoxy, which is fatal in an age of anti-establishment decline. There exist many serious issues which need dealing with but Starmer doesn’t have the requisite serious politics to offer serious solutions to them.
Starmer’s successes have mostly been in internal Labour wrangling as he screwed over the Labour left and sidelined the membership. Corbynism had many faults and I realise I’m in a bit of an anti-leftist space here, but I do think the legacy of his one clear ‘success’ will be to permanently delegitimise Labour as a force for good in the eyes of left leaning voters like myself.
Thanks for engaging Tulse.
I’d take a left critique of Starmer more seriously if I felt that it had ever been fair; in fact, even in the immediate aftermath of October 7th, rhetoric against him and his culpability was off the charts from the left. Notice the sign I saw was seen in December 12th last year - the broader left has just been waiting to call the guy a child murderer. And let’s be clear, this isn’t a normal thing to accuse someone of, and I’m not sure where it leaves any debate, and the Corbynite left reached, and still reaches for that level of hatred almost immediately.
What particularly rankles is that so much of the left that is disgruntled with Starmer said for years that with Corbyn, all they wanted was mainstream social democracy. Well, Starmer is exactly where the mainstream of European social democracy is at the moment, down to the bearish tone on immigration; domestically, this Labour government is investing more and doing social democratic things. It is strengthening employment protections and rental rights. It is building new towns.
And yet none of it figures - there isn’t any nuance in the left critique of Starmer, and hasn’t been from day one. There isn’t any relationship between Starmer and what his critics are making of him, in part because of his own political ineptness, in part because of his opponents’ bad faith. If I could adopt García Marquez, for Starmer and the left, it has always been a ‘Chronicle of a Betrayal Foretold’. However, I’d also raise that the piece is pretty critical of Starmer himself, and particularly that his idea that he is hear to restore ‘sanity’ is its own form of delusion. Still, he got elected, and I’m not sure many of his critics are serious about that. Within a democratic system, power without a willingness to compromise is just participation. And I think the broader anti-Labour left is only really interested in making the noises it likes, rather than actually improving people’s lives.
Thanks James, for this good and considered response. There’s two issues - Starmer’s seriousness, and secondly the left critique.
On the latter - there are many problems with the left (I’ve never been a fan of Corbyn), but I’m not sure you can treat them with the nihilistic sadism that McSweeney and the Labour right did, from 2015 onwards, and expect them to be critical friends. (See Paul Ovenden’s weird sexualised aggression towards Diane Abbott for an example of what is certainly the tip of the iceberg).
As for the domestic agenda, it’s nowhere near enough given the rut we’re in. Even Michael Gove wanted to do something about the way renters are treated in this country. The UK has got a lot wrong over the last 40 years and needs a different course, which Starmer isn’t setting and doesn’t seem to believe is necessary.
On the former I think you give examples yourself of his lack of seriousness, on brexit, immigration and tax. Boxing himself in over tax is the perfect example of how he’s not what he’s sold as - playing Westminster parlour games for short term advantage over serious analysis of the country’s problems.
Thanks Tulse again. My view is that in 2019 the left had driven Labour into a ditch, and anyone coming in had to absolutely get the left as far away from power as possible. They'd effectively run the Labour Party as a student debating society for years, and the EHRC report dropped on Starmer's watch too, a truly shameful event in the party's history which as far as I can see the Corbynite left barely acknowledge, except by accidentally betraying the extent of the problem.
As you say, my critique of Starmer is pretty clear that I don't think he's agile or improvisational enough to make the political weather. I also think the left is currently kidding itself that there is a huge reservoir of untaxed wealth in the UK which can usher in a bigger welfare state and higher standard of living. The tax burden in the UK is higher than in decades and the moves to tax the wealthier are just seeing money leave London.
The truth is the UK is becoming a much poorer country, and I think a useful left analysis has to start from there, rather than moving out the last drying slices of a decaying pie while pretending there's a lovely chocolate fondant still in the fridge.
What makes me most annoyed about Starmer is the obsession with reelection, in the UK you have this incredible blessing of 5 year terms and very few veto points that can block parliament
You can change a country in 5 years
LBJ ended segregation, passed Medicaid Medicare and the Great Society in 5 years and still had time for a disastrous war in SE Asia
Attlee set up the welfare state and nationalised industry in his 5 years all while recovering from WW2 (a black hole slightly bigger than $28 billion)
Even Thatcher pushed through most of what we think of as Thatcherism between 83 and 88
If Starmer had kicked out the campaign team and just set about changing the country, ignoring electoral calculus, who knows the public might just have rewarded him for it in 2029 anyway
Thanks for the article, really appreciated. My feeling is that the media is playing a much bigger role than you assign to them. Yes, Starmer could perform a more convincing version of himself in front of the cameras. Yes, the voters could be less silly and better informed. But in the current media environment I'm not convinced that either would make a difference.
It feels to me as if most media - old and new, mainstream and fringe - are training us to mistrust and hate politicians. It's the media, more than the politicians or the voters, who are the distorting lens that prevents either side from seeing each other clearly.
Insightful observation that you don't have to be a political extremist to take illogical or immoral positions. Getting too deep into politics makes anyone dumber and meaner. My apologies to most of you.
Presenting unsupported opinion as fact -
"Starmer is a nice guy"
Presenting fact as if it's unsupported opinion
"Starmer is supporting the Genocide in Gaza"
Concentrating on your perception of vibes and optics over concrete and demonstrable policies
Ignoring all valid criticism as "he's not Corbyn"/right wing conspiracy theory
Get challenged on it, respond with as hominem attacks and completely ignore the substance of the post I made.
Again, all of these things are facts, they're hot up for debate:
Starmer was DPP when Saville wasn't prosecuted
The UK is absolutely supporting Israel
Starmer has cracked down on the right to protest
Labour have expanded special economic zones
These are run by corporations, they are not under democratic control
Palantir and BlacRock are very heavily interested in UK data/infrastructure.
Presenting your opinion as factual and rational and then ignoring well-documented realities that contradict your opinion?
Yes, you're right, this definitely isn't my thing.
Undeniably interesting, and aided, I think, by being able to view the whole national car crash from the other side of the channel. You’ve certainly triggered some passionate responses from some people, particularly those who disagree with you, though one or two of them seem to prove some of your points for you.
I think you are right in characterising Starmer as a politician unsuited to the age. There probably is a decent, caring human being in there, but he has proved incapable of dealing with the challenges thrown at him, from within his party (he has allowed himself to be guided too much by Morgan McSweeney and has presided over the sidelining and expulsion of many a decent, hardworking member of the base which got him the gig in the first place) from the hysterical media, and from the increasingly fantasist MPs who oppose him in Parliament. He has of course been given an almost impossible task after several years of criminal negligence from the Tories, but his failure to express a coherent alternative narrative with which he can assert himself and his government make him look hopelessly unsuited to the challenge.
Can he turn it around? I suspect it may already be too late, though I don’t agree with your friend that we are in for ten years of the ‘Nigel show,’ as I’m not sure, when push comes to shove, whether the nation will vote Reform in sufficient numbers to enable them to form a government. Nor am I convinced that Farage, sensing the possibility of victory and the hard work which would follow it, will actually stick around that long.
Our best (or most realistic) hope next time is probably a hung parliament, which might produce a ‘coalition of the willing’ to oppose the lunacies of the far right, and, even better, might finally be persuaded to bring about a more proportional system of election.
People have got to come to their senses eventually, haven’t they?
I thought being abroad might be an impediment to seeing things fairly, but glad to see that's not the case for you.
I do think a large part of the nuttiness abroad comes from trying to filter multiparty politics through a binary system, and welcome anything that gets us away from that.
The level of Starmer hate does seem out of all proportion to the blandness of the man himself. Perhaps the only leaders the Great British Public are willing to countenance are those as absurd as themselves.
So many bald an unsupported assertions even in the first paragraph that really don't stand up to scrutiny:
He's in the pay of grooming gangs
- No, he actually *was* the man in charge when Saville was not prosecuted. That's a fact, it's not up for debate.
Starmer has personally enabled genocide.
- He is the PM of a country that is supporting Israel materially, logistically and rhetorically. He has overseen a massive crackdown on the right to protest directly connected to this. Again, these are uncontroversial facts.
He's 'tacked to the centre'.
He has overseen the expansion of privately giverned special economic zones. He intends to massively expand military spending. He is using anti-immigrant rhetoric and harder policies and penalties for asylum seekers. He is cracking down in the right to protest. His government is, by British standards, highly authoritarian in approach, both in terms of internal and external governance.
His government is openly corrupt - high numbers of gifts accepted, wholly dependent on large donors and openly courting the takeover of key sectors of the UK by private interests. Palantir in the NHS, BlackRock for key infrastructure.
These are unsupported and right wing standpoints.
He has openly and repeatedly lied to the electorate.
To suggest that the only reason people are critical of this stuff is because he 'isn't Jeremy Corbyn' is insulting to the intelligence of your readers.
A paragraph of your work and you can rest assured I'll never be reading it again.
That's great Sebastian, it really doesn't sound like it's your thing
Hi, proof of concept, glad you came.
Go on then, demonstrate which of my statements were inaccurate.
Crank by name, crank by nature
Never hear that one before! Care to demonstrate which of my statements was incorrect?
Methinks you are just the kind of barking mad citizen referenced in the latter portion of this essay. Godspeed…
Go on then. Which statements were inaccurate? BlackRock isn't heavily invested in UK infrastructure? The UK isn't supporting Israel? Starmer wasn't DPP? Which ones were inaccurate?
Reading from Ireland and a former member of the British Labour Party I found it interesting and insightful if somewhat depressing and eerily familiar to the Brown premiership where his presumption that the public would reward his genuine patriotism by putting the country first by saving the banks was proved wrong in 2010.
Labour in Government seems unable to mobilise a campaigning activism within the party and beyond to sell the benefits of Labour. And this is another. Starmer acts and sounds like the head of the Civil Service or CEO not the leader of the sixth largest economy in the world
Thanks for reading Brian. I've been an optimistic about the UK all my adult life, but this moment, I must confess, is testing me.
I think this makes good arguments against criticizing starmer from the left (which afaict are the main audience of this piece), but not from the right. I agree starmer has given the left pretty much everything he realistically could, but that just opens him up further to legitimate criticisms from the right or center.
I don’t think it's really a Labour PM's job to keep the right happy. Besides, my argument is that a good part of the right's objection to him is for trends they themselves set in motion.
"the idea of deporting people who have lived here for decades, for example"
The term is "indefinite leave to remain". Indefinite means: there is no time. It isn't a temporary visa for a period, nor is it citizenship for life. And it is supposed to lead to citizenship, not remaining on temporary leave to remain for life.
What's your time limit? Someone arrives illegally in the back of a truck, works in the black economy. How long before they automatically get citizenship? 5 years? 10?
I'm not proposing automatic citizenship for anyone. What Reform has proposed is revoking ILR for people already granted it if they no longer meet income thresholds. This is a recipe for chaos and plunging people into anguish and uncertainty.
On your other points, not every country allows Dual Citizenship, so ILR offers people who do not have the option to take it the right to reside long term in the UK without giving up their existing citizenship. I don't believe we should require people who become British to give up their existing times to their home country.
Aren't you? What's the difference between granting people permanent right to remain and citizenship, other than perhaps the right to vote?
And how is it chaos? I presume Reform's plan doesn't mean just turfing people out in the middle of the night, but some sort of notice period of a few months to end leases, arrange transport.
"I don't believe we should require people who become British to give up their existing times to their home "
Which country are they going to fight for in the event of war?
OK Tim, thanks for engaging but that's enough for us. Take care
He’s not a decent person, he’s an evil, lying bastard and it’s plain for all to see
What has Starmer done which is 'evil'?
"this is an entirely separate matter than reversing Brexit – public discourse can acknowledge that the project of withdrawal from the European Union has not gone well."
How much of the grandfathered EU law has been changed? Almost none of it. We are still, to nearly all intents and purposes, following EU law. We have gained none of the advantages of being outside, where we could end trade barriers, enjoy cheaper goods, supply goods and services that other countries in the world might want (but which the rest of the EU doesn't allow).
Both of the main parties have shown zero interest in pursuing this since officially leaving. Because the truth is, they just want back in, not to make agreements in Britain's interest.
Britain's interests are global. We mostly trade outside the EU. We import lots from them, in which case, they can bend to us if they want to sell. Or, we just make cars from Korea and Japan zero tariff and flood our market, and VW and Renault can go squealing to Brussels about making a deal.
We're still aligned to them on the cast majority of regulations because we need to continue selling to them. The EU remains our biggest trading partner and the centre of our geopolitical interests; country's don't choose their neighbourhoods.
In addition, there is at preseng no substantial public appetite or mandate for deviating significantly from either European legislative standards or the European social model.
The truth is a narrowly tho clearly won referendum almost ten years ago isn't a large enough mandate for the kind of radical reorganisation of Britain's economic model which would make Brexit worth doing. That mandate will have to be obtained separately; perhaps Reform can indeed win on 'True Brexit' has never been tried.
You don't need to align with a country to trade with them. You just have companies producing products and services that are compliant.
For example, to run a clinical trial website in Canada, it has to be in both English and French. We don't insist on all websites being in English and French for all websites produced by drug trial companies in the EU. You can just accept the laws at the point of trade. Which is how it should be.
None of this is about a "radical reorganisation". Trade has shifted over 40 years. What we sell, and where. Hardcore remainers still think like it's the 1980s. That this is the centre of our economic interests, and it isn't. We export more to the rest of the world now. We import a lot from the EU. So, we should negotiate from that position: we can do a lot more damage to VW and Burgundy producers than the EU can do to stilton makers. Why would we pay to be in a club, why would we take unfavourable terms, when the EU needs us more than we need them? If you're selling something, you take the client out for lunch, not the other way around.