Latest news with #Blairite
Daily Record
03-06-2025
- Business
- Daily Record
Renfrew's Jamie McGuire becomes first Labour councillor to defect to Reform
Nigel Farage's team confirmed the news in a social media post yesterday afternoon as the party leader joined campaigners in the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election. Renfrew councillor Jamie McGuire has defected to Reform UK. Nigel Farage's team confirmed the news in a social media post yesterday afternoon as the party leader joined campaigners in the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election. The representative for Renfrew North and Braehead is the first Labour councillor to defect to Reform in Scotland. In a statement on social media, Reform UK said: 'We are delighted to welcome former Scottish Labour councillor Jamie McGuire.' McGuire makes the move just one week after Reform UK was accused of 'blatant racism' towards his former party leader Anas Sarwar. The party released an edited video of Sarwar marking the 75th anniversary of Pakistan's independence in which they said he would 'prioritise the Pakistani community on Scotland". That was untrue. McGuire was previously viewed as a rising star in the Labour party and worked in the constituency office of Paisley MP Alison Taylor. The 25-year-old was formerly the chair of the Glasgow University Labour Club – and even arranged for a visit from left-wing hero Jeremy Corbyn in 2021. McGuire said in 2021: 'I've been asked a lot recently if I'm a Corbynite or Starmerite, a Blairite or Brownite. My answer is none of the above. I'm a Labourite who will campaign for every Labour leader because I know the difference Labour can make in power locally and nationally.' McGuire is the third Renfrewshire councillor to defect to Reform. Alec Leishman and John Gray crossed the aisle from the Conservatives, stating Reform was the only party that could bring about real change. Leishman, who represents Erskine and Inchinnan, defected in February this year, with Gray, who also represents Renfrew North and Braehead, following suit in March. Both have since refused to stand down and spark a by-election.
New Statesman
02-06-2025
- Politics
- New Statesman
Andy Burnham has made his leadership pitch
Photo by. Inside Labour there might not be a vacancy but there is always a contest. The government's early unpopularity means this is even more true than usual. Over the last fortnight – via her leaked memo to Rachel Reeves – Angela Rayner's alternative vision has become clearer. MPs believe both the Deputy PM and her more Blairite rival Wes Streeting are monitoring their support within the parliamentary party. But it is Andy Burnham who is most clearly positioning for a post-Starmer world. Critical interventions by the Greater Manchester mayor are hardly unheard of. During Keir Starmer's difficult early years as Labour leader, Burnham regularly advertised himself as an alternative. His speech to the soft left group Compass on Saturday afternoon (31 May), however, was qualitatively different. It was the most wide-ranging critique of the government from any senior Labour figure since the general election and ultimately resembled a leadership manifesto (Compass's director Neal Lawson opened the day by hailing Burnham as 'by far and away the most popular person to be the next leader of the Labour Party'). In the mid-1970s and early 1980s, Tony Benn championed his 'alternative economic strategy'; Burnham hailed what he described as his 'popular left programme'. His 17-minute address – which avoided any mention of Starmer or Reeves – was filled with rebukes to the Labour leadership. 'I believe you do have to take on the right,' Burnham told a crowd assembled on the dancefloor of the Ministry of Sound in south London. 'But what's the best way to do that? Definitely not by aping their rhetoric' (an implicit reference to Starmer's recent speech on immigration). He added: 'We see from Canada and Australia that a strong, confident left, which leans into what we believe, rather than tilting the other way, can win and can win well.' Burham, who has had a historically fraught relationship with Starmer's office (once declaring: 'leave me alone'), demanded a 'move away from the factionalism that has bedevilled us on all sides of the party' and condemned the 'infantile' belief that it was 'disloyal' to 'talk to other parties, particularly on the centre or the left'. It's traditional for mayors to speak out on issues related to their administration – such as devolved funding – and to occasionally intervene on national policy (as Burnham and Sadiq Khan did when they backed a ceasefire in Gaza in 2023). But Burnham went far beyond this, calling for a 'substantially new offer for the public'. Though he praised 'good policies' such as the renationalisation of the railways, he repeatedly outflanked the government from the left, criticising 'too much timidity in our offer, too much reluctance to show the courage of our convictions'. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe He called for Labour to abandon cuts to health and disability benefits, to impose higher taxes on wealth (Reeves's aides repeatedly point out that she has already done so), to announce 'the biggest and quickest council and social housing building programme the county has ever seen', to reverse spending cuts to local authorities, to introduce free transport for teenagers in England, to replace first-past-the-post with proportional representation and to abolish the party whipping system. In its fusion of economic and constitutional radicalism there were echoes of the programme once advocated by Benn (another former cabinet minister who moved left with age). One left-wing Labour MP described Burnham's speech to me as a 'full-blooded rejection of the politics of Reeves and Starmer' and an 'extremely interesting development'. Another MP commented: 'What's he got to lose? But they [the leadership] are not going to let him come back into parliament.' The event marked the most significant gathering of the soft left – the group which often determines Labour leadership results – since the election. Though Compass has allowed members of other parties to join since 2011, this was a Labour-focused affair: other speakers included energy minister Miatta Fahnbulleh (who spoke alongside Burnham), former cabinet minister Louise Haigh, former Welsh first minister Mark Drakeford and former New Labour ministers Clare Short and John Denham (who described Starmer's administration to me as 'the most intellectually incurious Labour government that has ever been elected'). Fahnbulleh, a key ally of Ed Miliband, used her own address to call for Labour to transform the welfare state into 'a well-being state', which offers 'guaranteed access for all who need it' to 'social care, to education, to childcare – a proper safety net to catch people when they fall on hard times'. A distinctive soft left critique recurred through the course of the day: Starmer's government, it was said, has not done enough to amplify policies such as the employment rights bill, rail public ownership and GB Energy and has made avoidable errors such as the winter fuel payment cuts and overly rigid fiscal rules. Fahnbulleh urged activists to 'tell the story of the wins that a progressive government is making' and to 'hold us to account when we get things wrong'. There were almost no references from speakers to Starmer – treated by some as a bystander in his own government – with ire focused on Reeves and the wider leadership. Lawson denounced the old right group Labour First, which I profiled here, as 'a party within a party' that 'now runs Labour in its rather dull, sectarian interest'. Who will emerge as the soft left's candidate of choice? Among Labour members, as polling by Survation shows, Miliband and Rayner are the most popular cabinet ministers (with approval ratings of +65 and +46 respectively). But Burnham's speech was an attempt to position himself as the soft left's standard bearer – a claim to Labour's moral leadership. 'If the next election is going to be a binary choice between two worldviews and the opposition is going to be the divisive populist right then we must be the unifying popular left,' Burnham declared. He did not say whether he hopes to lead this movement – but he didn't need to. [See also: The British left is coming for the Government] Related
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Starmer is determined to let the sun set on Britain, regardless of what we think
In October last year I was trying not to cut myself shaving when Tony Blair's former Chief of Staff, Jonathan Powell, popped onto the radio to talk about the Chagos Islands and why the UK should surrender them to Mauritius. That is, just why the British taxpayer should pay billions to give their own territory away to a third country thousands of miles away from the strategic archipelago (not even its neighbour), and which – in all the complex and intriguing history of those islands – had never ruled over them for so much as half an hour. Refashioned by the Blairite recycling facility as Keir Starmer's National Security Adviser, Powell had been appointed 'Special Envoy' to negotiate with the Mauritius Government: an ominous early warning from the Labour administration. With the world on fire, were there not more pressing matters to resolve in the foreign policy file? Asked whether such a giveaway would make Britain 'smaller', Powell – the man responsible for advising on the United Kingdom's national security – replied with patrician disdain: 'These are very tiny islands in the middle of the Indian Ocean where no one actually goes, so I don't think we should be too worried about losing that bit of territory we're probably losing more to tidal erosion on the east coast'. This most sophisticated of Starmer's political operatives had let the mask slip (not to mention my razor). That comment – and the Chagos giveaway in general – reveals the government's real agenda in foreign and defence policy: Starmer is determined to use his enormous power to shrink the UK's influence and global reach. It's the same old self-limiting – even self-harming – policy all too often promoted by the British elite (of any party). Confusing our allies, and letting down those – like the Chagossians – who honestly seek British protection. How revealing that Powell chose coastal erosion as his metaphor. Isn't that precisely how Starmer and his ilk sees British power and influence: pre-destined to an endless, unstoppable erosion, like the disappearance of a coastal shelf? A Britain forever gradually shrinking in global affairs. In a literal sense, of course, Powell was correct. These are a group of very tiny islands – but the most significant is Diego Garcia, which houses a joint US-UK military base – for the use of which we now must pay billions. A base bristling with vital surveillance equipment, a place to park bombers and submarines in range of the Indo-Pacific; until yesterday, a little piece of Britain in the most contested strategic domain on earth. Yes it's true that not many people actually go – you were very unlikely to have met anyone who had ever visited British Indian Ocean Territory – most of them are at the more secret end of the UK's armed forces. Wasn't that the point? You could not visit the islands without a permit also because the territory was an almost unspoilt conservation zone, with one of the largest protected marine science areas in the world, unique stocks of coral reefs, and some very endangered turtles. Under the strict bylaws, drawn up by world-class ecological experts in the Foreign Office – you couldn't take so much as a can of fizzy drink onto one of the islands without properly accounting for it. Starmer has spoiled all that. Why? No country thinks the value of its territory has anything to do with its size or population density. No Prime Minister approaches sovereignty according to the Powell doctrine. And notwithstanding the Government's vile treatment of the Chagossians – who have legitimate grievances but have been excluded from its process – I'm not sure it's really about that either. Starmer's deal is simply a deliberate choice to lessen the UK's global reach. Deep down, Starmer is not concerned with the intricacies of the Chagossian story, access to the electromagnetic spectrum, or the threat of international courts. He simply believes in creating a smaller, less globally assertive United Kingdom. This deal is a signal to the closely watching world that under his leadership Britain is likely to pull out of its commitments – and can be forced out of deeply historic ones. It is a sign to every international negotiator that the British taxpayer can be taken to the cleaners, and to every international lawyer that they need only raise the threat of a spurious claim and Britain might blink. The only positive I can find is that younger British leaders coming through on the Right all hate it – and many of them are working on reversing the erosion. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
New Statesman
22-05-2025
- Politics
- New Statesman
Farage lives rent-free in Starmer's head
Photo by Benjamin Cremel/AFP Keir Starmer's rough ride at a Parliamentary Labour Party meeting where one MP counted 26 questions, all critical, brought him back to Earth with a bump after his EU love-in with Ursula von der Leyen and António Costa. The PM was, another backbencher observed, the 'stranger in the room', with a mutinous air in the usual committee corridor venue and an overspill linked by video. The compliance of members of a newly installed governing party is over, jubilation replaced by fear. Nigel Farage lives rent-free in the heads of Starmer and many of his MPs. The PM's assertion that 'we can't out-Reform Reform' sounded like an admission that echoing Enoch Powell was a mistake. Next time No 10 orders MPs to jump, many will reply 'why?', said a disillusioned newbie, rather than 'how high?'. Finding a Labour big-name defector tops Nigel Farage's shopping list, yet his arms remain open wide for desperate Conservatives – which swiftly brings us to Suella Braverman. A Farage gopher whispered Reform hopes to recruit the twice-sacked home secretary in 18 months to build a momentum that finally flattens the Tories and accelerates the challenge to Labour. The strategy is risky. Braverman is, to say the least, controversial, while Farage stuffing his ranks with even more Tories could be a lifeline for Starmer. Intriguingly a snout overheard Braverman's hubby Rael predicting she'd eventually follow when he jumped from the Tories on to the Reform bandwagon late last year. Zillionaire Tory donor and pollfather Michael Ashcroft is messing with Badenoch's head by playing footsie with Farage. The Reform UK leader is the subject of the dark lord's next political biography and is cheerily cooperating with the former peer. My snout observed Farage and fellow self-styled 'Bad Boys of Brexit' Aaron Banks and Andy Wigmore plus Reform MP Richard Tice all graced Ashcroft's launch of an updated Starmer book. Badenoch and her senior team? Nowhere to be seen. The moneybags international man of mystery shuffling along Britain's right-wing spectrum would be a careless loss for a Tory leader previously lauded by Ashcroft in a glowing Blue Ambition biog. Trust between No 10 and lobby hacks is close to zero, with political journalists complaining they're regularly led a merry dance by Downing Street. First, a travelling press pack was sent to the wrong Jaguar Land Rover plant for Starmer's US trade deal presser, then a group flown to Albania were given the hokey-cokey over so-called return hubs (don't mention Rwanda). Spinners briefed reporters they were definitely not on the PM's agenda, then suddenly pulled a reverse ferret. Blairite host Edi Rama saved the day by announcing Albania wouldn't accept one. All very left hand, right hand, etc. Kevin Maguire is the associate editor (politics) of the Daily Mirror [See also: The long arm of Reform] Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Related
New Statesman
20-05-2025
- Politics
- New Statesman
Are the Blairites still the future?
Photo byIf, going about your business within the Labour Party, you encounter a confident, self-described and evangelical Blairite, it is very likely they have some association with the organisation that began its life as 'Progress'. Founded a year before Blair's 1997 victory, it flew the flag of New Labour reformism more enthusiastically than anyone else. After the 2010 election, Progress formed a haven for New Labour's loyalists. During Ed Miliband's leadership, it provided a forum for internal critics of his limited attempts to move the party left. Through the Corbyn years, Progress were definitively Core Group Negative, loud and angry about Labour's political transformation. Their strength derived from the fact that, in the broad sense of the term, they had 'a politics': policy instincts, strong branding and a distinctive affect, all of which extended to their organising efforts and intra-party networks. You knew what these people thought about tuition fees and public private partnership and interventionist foreign policy and economic flexibility and Europe (enthusiastically pro in all cases). Their positions on the singular merits of the trade union Community and the need to systemically crush the Labour left were similarly clear. It was a way of thinking that many people (myself included) saw as rigid and dogmatic. But at least it had dogmas – belying the stereotype of the Labour right as unthinking pragmatists. Arguably theirs was a set of views that made sense between the end of the Cold War and the coming of the financial crash – but one that even in the 2010s was beginning to creak and calcify. Post-pandemic and post-Corbyn, it's an approach that seems hopelessly out of date. For instance, what does the Labour progressives' immigration policy look like; where is its thinking on the rise of populism? Progress is now Progressive Britain, following a merger with the think tank Policy Network in 2021. (This followed a previous collaboration with the old right faction Labour First to form the campaign group 'Labour to Win'.) At Progressive Britain's conference in central London earlier this month, there was certainly evidence of material flourishing: having foolishly bought a pastry breakfast at Pret, I arrived to find a spread of chia seed puddings and small avocado toasts. Copies of the new print magazine – titled, appropriately enough, 'Progress', now in its second issue, and physically a very handsome thing – were scattered about. A faction's flourishing, however, is measured by more than material prosperity (and Progressive Britain's flourishing is supported by a US centrist behemoth, the Progressive Policy Institute, which is backing the conference). Measured in intellectual vitality and ideological commitment, and not in early-morning hors d'oeuvres, things look considerably less rosy – and speak to a crisis of imagination and relevance on the Labour right. Superficially, these people – Labour's progressives – are in charge now. Pat McFadden is one of the most important people in government; cabinet ministers Darren Jones and Bridget Phillipson both addressed the conference, as did former Progress chair and current employment minister Alison McGovern. Progress graduates have considerable command over party management: candidate selection at the last election was handled by former Progress deputy director Matt Faulding, who is now PLP secretary, and after the election former Progress staffer Henna Shah was initially put in charge of negotiating No 10's relationship with MPs. But despite links and influence, this isn't their government. Keir Starmer isn't their guy, and the government's programme, and many of its ministers, are not the ones Progressive Britain would have chosen. This places Progressive Britain in a peculiar position. The Starmer administration is enough its own – and committed sufficiently to squashing the Labour left – that it has to be happy with the situation. But supporting a government that doesn't belong to you puts you in a strategic bind. Maintaining a distinctive politics requires outlining points of conflict even with those you are broadly allied to. There is pressure from the right within Labour – just ask the MPs who think we should leave the European Convention on Human Rights. But with the notable exception of the discontent over the government's plans on academies, it is not coming from Labour's progressives. Indeed, Progressive Britain explicitly says it wants to be better message-carriers for Starmer. 'We all need to do better explaining the decisions of the government,' said its executive director, Adam Langleben, to open Progressive Britain's conference. Providing this kind of support without the clarity of critique means the political space Progressive Britain occupies feels vaguer than before. This stems equally from problems with the government: the boat is drifting, everyone knows that. But while the protesting left has been locked below decks, the right is cheering on the captain even while squinting nervously at the horizon. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe In this slightly listless position, there are two things, going by the conference, that are still animating Labour's progressives. Those things are Yimby-ism (the magazine splashes 'builders, not blockers' on its cover and in the afternoon you could listen to Mike Reader MP at a session titled 'The Yimby party?') and the reforming possibilities of artificial intelligence. Even then, the impetus behind these issues is largely exogenous to Labour. Instead it can be found somewhere between the Tony Blair Institute (TBI), the PricedOut housing campaign group, and Lawrence Newport's Looking for Growth. And if the TBI has created a recognisable and coherent form of neo-Blairism, it is not one that regards the Labour Party as its vehicle for change, and those who might see themselves as internal heirs to Blair do not seem to have a theory for revitalising the party in the manner of their hero. As well as a vaguer intellectual programme, a lot of people I spoke to had vaguer commitments than I might have expected at such an event. Most of these people are Labour centrists, shunted in their associations and alliances to the right of the party by the dramatic line-drawing of the Corbyn years. Perhaps I'm just getting old, but it didn't used to be like this: where are the people with blood on their teeth, filled with messianic belief and ruthless purpose? The Friends of Labour Students, the ones still in 'Team Tessa' WhatsApp groups? Did the loss of the Labour left mean a loss of purpose for Labour's progressives, revealing a thinner politics than previously thought? Was the right's eventual triumph more of a pyrrhic victory than it looked from the outside, with 'stay and fight' drawing attention away from the many who left and the resources they took with them? Did the siloing of organising efforts into Labour to Win leave Progressive Britain with more time to think, but less to think about? Or are Britain and the government's problems simply so intractable that no one, up to and including the Progressive Britain set, knows what to do about them? The ghost at the feast is Wes Streeting, for a decade the coming man in this part of the world, and for almost as long their once-and-future leadership hope. But even at this event, no one I ask thinks he will be the next leader of the Labour Party. Among other considerations, his positioning on trans issues has created a red line for many people of this political persuasion who might otherwise have supported him (a problem particularly acute given Progressive Britain's historically close relationship with LGBT Labour, which is one of a handful of groups – Labour Friends of Israel, Community union, East and South East Asians for Labour – with stalls at the conference). In 2011, Progress (as it then was) produced The Purple Book: A Progressive Future for Labour, an essay collection featuring rising stars of the time: Rachel Reeves, Liz Kendall, Caroline Flint and Steve Reed. Many of these people are in government now, but the success of the authors has not translated to success for the faction. It's hard to imagine what a contemporary Purple Book would look like, and whether this faction are capable of the difficult work that considered revisionism requires. It seems that Labour's progressives are no longer the future they once believed was theirs. [See also: How Labour learned to love immigration control] Related
