Latest news with #GetIn
The National
17 hours ago
- Politics
- The National
Anas Sarwar and Keir Starmer have taken another hit to any credibility
For the recently wedded, the first anniversary is known as the paper one. So-called, apparently, because the relationship of the couple is still fragile and delicate territory and is also a blank page representing how they are just beginning their life story together. Or maybe underscoring the need for a government to remember the all-important relationship with its own troops. However, you dress it up, the very late-night concessions wrung out of a beleaguered Work and Pensions Secretary last Thursday night count as the third government U-turn in the last month. Thatcher once famously told her conference: 'You turn if you want to, the Lady's not for turning.' As they say; compare and contrast. READ MORE: 'Completely unprecedented': BBC cuts live feed for Kneecap Glastonbury performance In the past 48 hours, the narrative has been swiftly rewritten as the bill being strengthened, and the Government only changing its mind having listened – however belatedly – to its own backbenchers. The latter, of course, had already been listening to some very alarmed disabled voters and unpaid carers, liable to lose some £4k of urgently needed funds. Turns out that what the PM dismissed as 'noises off' when he was at the G7 was more of a howl of anguish from a wheen of Labour MPs who had listened to their constituents more assiduously than their own cabinet had listened to them. What can't be mended by this late-night about-turn is the anguish of many PIP recipients who have been through the mental wringer as minister after minister intoned that the bill would not be amended. There's a very instructive passage in the book Get In, which recounts how Starmer was selected as Labour's likely leader and, if all went to plan, the PM in waiting: '[Morgan] McSweeney and his acolytes saw themselves as insurgents … as long as Starmer's private office was functional, they could control the party's politics themselves, without interference from small-minded Westminster villagers.' The book also details Starmer's contempt for, and refusal to play by, the normal political rules. Which may just explain why Labour's high command, and its leader, remained tone-deaf to the scale of the rebellion until five minutes to midnight. It also explains why Starmer first appointed Sue Gray as his chief of staff, believing that she could plug the gaps in the rest of the staff's political nous. Then she too was defenestrated. McSweeney took the post instead which is a high-profile insider's role when the going is good, less so when the solid matter hits the fan. As he found out when he and Sir Keir tried to stem the rising tide of rebellion. Even deploying high-profile colleagues to ring around the erstwhile faithful failed to persuade them to take their names off the so-called wrecking amendment. They longed for more of what Bush Senior once called 'the vision thing' and less growth through guns. (Image: Rafik Wahba on Unsplash) There's always spare cash for shiny new weaponry, many thought, but less for the poor, vulnerable or disabled. This was not why people had voted for Labour. (Not at all incidentally, the 12 new F-35A planes – which can carry tactical nuclear weapons – will come in at £80 million each, or just under £1 billion all told. Other defence contracts will be just shy of £60bn in the next calendar year.) Not really the sort of price tag which usually attracts 'noises off'. The other thing to note about the purchase of the planes is that they're entirely contingent on the USA giving the go-ahead for their use – a bit like Trident which some people persist in calling our 'independent' nuclear deterrent. The other day I heard Pat McFadden, the Scot who has sat for a Wolverhampton seat for the past 20 years, talk of America being a 'reliable ally'. Really? Would that be the country with a president as predictable as a Scottish weather vane? The chap with the shortest attention span of any adult political leader? Allegedly the G7 timetable was hugely truncated to stop the Trump person getting too bored and maybe even again leaving early! It was once observed of Scottish golfing great Sandy Lyle that the longest thing he had ever read was a left-to-right putt. Bit like the perennially (and expensively) golfing bod in the White House. Maybe flying back early from the Canadian summit gave him time for a quick nine holes before popping into his security meeting. Typically, he then claimed credit for solving all conflicts everywhere, his Iranian adventure certainly ensuring that attention was diverted from the carnage in Gaza. Despite the ill-named Humanitarian Foundation he set up with his pal 'Bibi' having led to the murder of countless civilians whose 'crime' was being so desperate for food that they approached the aid stations, where many were gunned down. Trump's reaction to all of this was to toss the Foundation another $30m, although the operation had been roundly condemned by everyone who actually understood, after many years of experience, how to distribute aid without casualties. Inevitably, the fallout from the latest UK Government's capitulation has had an impact on the politics in our own backyard. Although there were the signatures of no fewer than 12 Scottish Labour MPs on the amendment, Anas Sarwar chose to back his ultimate boss. No change there, then. Wonder how he felt on Friday morning when the commitment to reform welfare and the pre-existing bill met the Head Office's shredding machine. If you want people to stop referring to Scottish Labour as a branch office, then it's essential to stop behaving like a branch manager. Sarwar may have to eat some humble pie this coming week, but his are flesh wounds compared to the ugly gash in the PM's credibility. Sir Keir was much given to mocking what he called the 'sticking plaster' policies of the government he so handsomely defeated a torrid 12 months ago. It will take more than a temporary plaster to heal this particular wound, I'm guessing. And what of his Chancellor? Her legendary fiscal rules are apparently self-imposed; a naked bid to convince the marketplace that she was a serious chancellor with a serious agenda and would not cave in to external pressure. That too will lack credibility when she checks her spreadsheets and finds an ever-larger, blacker hole than the one she inherited. She and Keir will doubtless argue that the humongous hike in defence expenditure was an essential response to the dangerous times in which we all now live. If that response includes tax rises and these are not aimed at those with obscenely broad shoulders, she may find herself pointed at the shredder too. There is a well-trained army of lawyers and accountants whose day job is to allow the very wealthy to stay that way by stashing their cash in a variety of offshore hidey-holes. Every government promises to clamp down on this mammoth tax fraud and no government, to my knowledge, has made the smallest dent in it. When Denis Healey was chancellor, he got pelters for suggesting he would 'squeeze property speculators until the pips squeak'. Mind you, the same gent once observed: 'Being chancellor is not a woman's job. There's a difference between the sexes, and people who don't know that don't know what people are like with their clothes off.' I'm sure he didn't repeat that in the hearing of the redoubtable Edna Healey, his missus. Then again, having a woman ruling the roost at number 11 probably depends on the woman.
The Guardian
18-04-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Dear Keir Starmer, there is a way to rout Nigel Farage – and it's staring you in the face
Most reviews of Get In, the recently published history of Keir Starmer's Labour by the Times journalists Patrick Maguire and Gabriel Pogrund, focused on its exposure of the prime minister's unease with the rough and tumble of politics, and his consequent reliance on Morgan McSweeney, now his chief of staff. A spectacular what-might-have-been moment in the book concerns another Downing Street svengali figure, however; one rumoured to be plotting Nigel Farage's path to power at the next election. At the beginning of 2019, it turns out, Dominic Cummings attempted to convince aides to Jeremy Corbyn that Labour should vote for Theresa May's Brexit withdrawal agreement, thereby prompting a split in the Conservative party and a swift election. Labour could then fight and win that contest on its own natural territory of funding the NHS and public services. As Cummings put it in a text to Corbyn's spokesperson: 'You get Brexit through, [People's Vote] fucked … high chance of Govt collapse … Tory civil war guaranteed for years in any scenario.' Plausible? Corbyn's sharpest political ally, John McDonnell, was among those who didn't buy it, fearing that Labour would be deserted by millions of middle-class remainers crying betrayal. Instead, under Starmer's direction as shadow Brexit secretary, the other fork in the road was chosen. The party backed a second referendum, and was subsequently routed in the 'get Brexit done' election at the end of the year. Viewed in hindsight, the politics of that moment look just as invidious as they did then. But as May's local elections approach, and Farage promises to park Reform UK's tanks 'on the lawns of the red wall', the anecdote is of far more than historical interest. Cummings – in bracingly ecumenical fashion – understood the social democratic potential in the disruptions of the 2010s, as the blue-collar vote asserted itself in unpredictable ways. Does Labour, even now? As a now familiar pattern of extreme political turbulence continues domestically and abroad, Labour's massive but shallow victory last July seems almost a trick of the electoral light. Polls indicate that support is being lost to the right, the left and the centre. Front and centre in the north of England and Midlands, though, is the gathering momentum of Farageism. The Runcorn and Helsby byelection on 1 May will be a knife-edge affair – one that many Labour loyalists believe Reform will win. A Farage triumph, in the first Westminster contest since the heady days of last summer, would underline that the resentments and aspirations for which Brexit was a vehicle have not gone away. As the government continues to box itself in by sticking to self-defeating fiscal rules, it may already be too late to avoid a Runcorn outcome that will trigger painful memories of December 2019. But between now and the next election, if Labour is to avoid the strategic mistakes of the recent past it will need to think in more imaginative, ambitious and generous terms about who the Reform-facing or Reform-curious actually are, and what they are trying to say. A report in March by the polling group More in Common delivered one suggestive nugget that might help. Collating responses according to its own range of voter types across the political spectrum, the report's authors noted an unusual overlap. 'Loyal nationals' and 'progressive activists' were both more likely than other groups to think 'the government should act to limit the damage done by business'. Interesting. According to More in Common's typology, progressive activists will have gone deep into further education, live in cities, support Labour or the Greens, care about inequality and like the Guardian. Loyal nationals often read the Mail or the Sun, feel looked down upon by the certificated, are anxious about external threats and believe the nation should come together in defence of the collective self-interest. Is this a partial snapshot, then, of Labour's old, fractured voting coalition finally in agreement? In a subsequent dispatch published in the Guardian, More in Common's director, Luke Tryl, recorded similar sentiments in the towns of Merthyr Tydfil and Dudley, where Reform has been on the march for months. Alongside the now familiar distrust, bordering on contempt, for politicians, Tryl noted that 'big business was seen as just as bad. Energy companies and supermarkets profiteering from the cost of living crisis, Amazon not paying its fair share of tax, tech companies damaging young minds, were all raised across the two days as examples of rampant corporate greed.' Though it talks a good game in the regions, and sees the potential in some judicious 'old Labour'-style positioning, Reform generally aspires to satisfy corporate greed rather than challenge it. Its general election manifesto pledged to slash corporation tax as well as inheritance tax rates, and drastically raise the threshold for paying the higher rate of income tax. Loyal national types are wooed by mining of the darker seams of communitarian angst: 'small boats' rhetoric, the promise to take Britain out of the European court of human rights and boilerplate attacks on 'diversity'. Depressingly, it appears that Starmer and McSweeney's Labour continues to view blue-collar voters primarily the same way – to be courted through crackdowns on immigration and a high-profile focus on crime and policing. It is fatuous politics to play down the importance of either issue in Reform-friendly constituencies and beyond. But this remains a desperately narrow, limited interpretation of working-class values and preoccupations. Cummings' insight throughout the Brexit period was that in regions such as South Yorkshire and Tyne and Wear, there is a hankering for – and a memory of – a more collectivist politics than the exploitative rentier capitalism presided over by both the main parties for decades. The notorious £350m NHS pledge on the side of the Brexit bus worked for a reason. However cynically it was conceived, it stood for a reassertion of popular priorities and control over everyday lives, and the classical blue-collar (and Labour) values of mutuality and solidarity. As Labour has belatedly begun to realise in relation to the potential demise of the British steel industry, standing up for the public good against powerful but remote interests can be popular with 'progressives' and 'patriots'. This principle, rather than a technocratic obsession with growth, can be the cornerstone of a future Labour voting coalition that calls Reform's bluff and injects some much-needed idealism into the nation's politics. Such an approach would mean prosecuting a critique of the way contemporary capitalism works far more radical than the government has dared or wished to contemplate. Across the Atlantic, Donald Trump is undertaking his own quixotic version of this. Is it too much to hope that modern Labour, eventually, can respond with resources already present within its own traditions? Julian Coman is a Guardian associate editor
Middle East Eye
31-03-2025
- Politics
- Middle East Eye
Turkey's opposition threatens to block UK Labour return to Socialist International
Turkish opposition leader Ozgur Ozel has threatened to block the UK Labour Party's application for readmission to the Socialist International, a global alliance of centre-left parties, due to its silence over the arrest of Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu last week. In televised remarks on Monday, Ozel criticised British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the Labour Party for remaining largely silent about Imamoglu's detention on corruption charges, which Turkey's opposition describes as baseless and politically motivated. Imamoglu is widely viewed as the leading challenger to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the 2028 presidential election. The Republican People's Party (CHP), chaired by Ozel, officially named Imamoglu as its presidential candidate earlier this month, shortly after his arrest. Ozel noted that the British Labour Party only issued a statement about the situation after waiting a full week, and that this statement simply declared support for democracy in Turkey. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters 'Well, wake up and smell the coffee,' Ozel said. 'The British Labour Party wants to be readmitted as a member of an international organisation where I serve as vice president - the Socialist International. They will face the consequences from me.' The Labour Party had not responded to Middle East Eye's request for comment by time of publication. 'We support democracy' The Labour Party currently holds observer status at the Socialist International. Full membership or expulsion requires a two-thirds majority vote of the organisation's Congress. A spokesperson for the UK Foreign Office told AFP on Thursday that Britain urges the Turkish government to uphold the rule of law amid ongoing mass protests. However, British authorities have not released a formal, high-level statement on the matter. 'Get In': The plot involving a pro-Israel Irishman that helped Keir Starmer to power Read More » The UK and Turkey maintain close economic and defence ties, and London is currently negotiating a major sale of Eurofighter jets to Ankara, reportedly worth nearly $10bn. 'Because we share a strong and important relationship with Turkey, and as with all our allies, we expect the upholding of shared international commitments and the rule of law - including timely and transparent judicial processes,' the UK Foreign Office spokesperson said. 'Around the world, we support democracy and the fundamental rights to freedom of speech, peaceful assembly, and media freedom.' The UK has also updated its travel advisory for Turkey, urging British nationals to avoid crowds and demonstrations following protests that began on 19 March. Last week, Turkey deported BBC journalist Mark Lowen, who had been covering the demonstrations. According to the BBC, Turkish authorities claimed he posed 'a threat to public order'. Both the UK Labour Party and Turkey's CHP are members of the Party of European Socialists and the Progressive Alliance.
Yahoo
29-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
It's becoming obvious that Starmer simply isn't a leader
Who runs Britain? In a world of all-powerful permanent secretaries, sprawling agencies and quangos, and growing activism in domestic and international courts, it's a question worth asking. Whatever your answer, we can be certain it's not Sir Keir Starmer. In Get In, the tell-all account of Starmer's rise to the top of British politics, a member of the Prime Minister's inner circle quipped: 'Keir's not driving the train. He thinks he's driving the train, but we've sat him at the front of the DLR.' So who is pulling the strings of our Potemkin Prime Minister? By most accounts, it is Morgan McSweeney, Starmer's Chief of Staff. McSweeney's verdict on the PM is damning: 'Keir acts like an HR manager, not a leader.' But he's certainly not an HR manager either – turning a blind eye to the Chancellor and Business Secretary fibbing on their CVs. What is the point of him? Starmer appears oblivious to the enormous challenges facing the country. We have experienced nearly two decades of lost growth, a surge in violent crime, and unprecedented levels of mass migration have left parts of our major cities unrecognisable. Britain's social fabric is fraying from the denigration of British culture and the proliferation of divisive identity politics, high energy prices are deindustrialising Britain, and our borders have been blown open by young men crossing in small boats. The British state is as expensive and poorly planned as it has ever been and struggles to perform even the most basic functions well. The diagnosis is dire and the prescription must surely be something strong. But so far this Government has done little more than rearrange the deckchairs on the Titanic. Wherever you look, Starmer's Government is tinkering around the edges, seeking to manage failure, not turn things around. Take the sense of lawlessness on our streets. Starmer's new Crime and Policing Bill has been heralded as a game-changer. But Labour's own impact assessment shows that they only envisage between 13 to 55 extra criminals going to jail every year. Or look at defence spending, where Starmer talks with a straight face of moving the UK to a 'pre-war' state with just a £6 billion funding boost. Welfare spending is still forecast to rise even with his £3.4 billion pounds of savings, inevitably forcing the tax burden up higher still and killing any chance of growth. Labour has already missed its target for new homes and analysis shows the housing crisis will continue to worsen because demand from immigration will outstrip supply. When it comes to the economy, he is actively making things worse. His tax hikes have led to the growth forecast being halved for this year, and Reeves's fiddling of the fiscal rules has massively backfired, with interest on debt now more than a £100 billion. Meanwhile Ed Miliband's head-first rush to reach net zero is crippling businesses and family finances. As those who know him best have warned, Starmer simply isn't a leader. He is perfectly content for things to get worse, and flinches at the radical reforms needed to arrest decline. Even at the peak of his political powers he is timid, choosing to preserve his reputation within the British establishment as a status-quo politician that doesn't rock the boat. It's little wonder anti-politics sentiment is soaring and people have lost hope. Starmer spent five years fighting a battle to make the Labour Party electable, root out anti-Semitism and defeat Corbynism. He largely succeeded. What he didn't spend five years doing is thinking about how to fix the broken state and turn the country around. His mission has been to restore the soul of Labour, not the country. It meant that when he entered into Government he had no real plan, and no agenda for rebuilding Britain. Morgan McSweeney has been left to force-feed radicalism to a Prime Minister on hunger strike. If the penny does finally drop, it will be too late. The question is: what will be left of the country after four more years? 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.
Telegraph
29-03-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
It's becoming obvious that Starmer simply isn't a leader
Who runs Britain? In a world of all-powerful permanent secretaries, sprawling agencies and quangos, and growing activism in domestic and international courts, it's a question worth asking. Whatever your answer, we can be certain it's not Sir Keir Starmer. In Get In, the tell-all account of Starmer's rise to the top of British politics, a member of the Prime Minister's inner circle quipped: 'Keir's not driving the train. He thinks he's driving the train, but we've sat him at the front of the DLR.' So who is pulling the strings of our Potemkin Prime Minister? By most accounts, it is Morgan McSweeney, Starmer's Chief of Staff. McSweeney's verdict on the PM is damning: 'Keir acts like an HR manager, not a leader.' But he's certainly not an HR manager either – turning a blind eye to the Chancellor and Business Secretary fibbing on their CVs. What is the point of him? Starmer appears oblivious to the enormous challenges facing the country. We have experienced nearly two decades of lost growth, a surge in violent crime, and unprecedented levels of mass migration have left parts of our major cities unrecognisable. Britain's social fabric is fraying from the denigration of British culture and the proliferation of divisive identity politics, high energy prices are deindustrialising Britain, and our borders have been blown open by young men crossing in small boats. The British state is as expensive and poorly planned as it has ever been and struggles to perform even the most basic functions well. The diagnosis is dire and the prescription must surely be something strong. But so far this Government has done little more than rearrange the deckchairs on the Titanic. Wherever you look, Starmer's Government is tinkering around the edges, seeking to manage failure, not turn things around. Take the sense of lawlessness on our streets. Starmer's new Crime and Policing Bill has been heralded as a game-changer. But Labour's own impact assessment shows that they only envisage between 13 to 55 extra criminals going to jail every year. Or look at defence spending, where Starmer talks with a straight face of moving the UK to a 'pre-war' state with just a £6 billion funding boost. Welfare spending is still forecast to rise even with his £3.4 billion pounds of savings, inevitably forcing the tax burden up higher still and killing any chance of growth. Labour has already missed its target for new homes and analysis shows the housing crisis will continue to worsen because demand from immigration will outstrip supply. When it comes to the economy, he is actively making things worse. His tax hikes have led to the growth forecast being halved for this year, and Reeves's fiddling of the fiscal rules has massively backfired, with interest on debt now more than a £100 billion. Meanwhile Ed Miliband's head-first rush to reach net zero is crippling businesses and family finances. As those who know him best have warned, Starmer simply isn't a leader. He is perfectly content for things to get worse, and flinches at the radical reforms needed to arrest decline. Even at the peak of his political powers he is timid, choosing to preserve his reputation within the British establishment as a status-quo politician that doesn't rock the boat. It's little wonder anti-politics sentiment is soaring and people have lost hope. Starmer spent five years fighting a battle to make the Labour Party electable, root out anti-Semitism and defeat Corbynism. He largely succeeded. What he didn't spend five years doing is thinking about how to fix the broken state and turn the country around. His mission has been to restore the soul of Labour, not the country. It meant that when he entered into Government he had no real plan, and no agenda for rebuilding Britain. Morgan McSweeney has been left to force-feed radicalism to a Prime Minister on hunger strike. If the penny does finally drop, it will be too late. The question is: what will be left of the country after four more years?
