Latest news with #Starmerism
The National
2 days ago
- Politics
- The National
Kenny MacAskill: SNP losing by-election was unforgiveable
The town's name is seared in Scotland's soul from Winnie Ewing's victory there in the UK Parliament by-election in 1967. I was a child then but was aware of its seismic effect on not just Scottish politics but Scottish society. Many stalwarts told me how a movement viewed as marginal and romantic came alive with that triumph. Scottish politics was changed irrevocably, with independence becoming a possibility, not just a dream. More recently, when I was justice secretary, I worked with Christina McKelvie, an assiduous and popular MSP, as she sought to address knife crime in her community. READ MORE: SNP candidate calls out Tory rival for being in 'lockstep with failed ideology' The seat's loss a bitter blow to the efforts of those stalwarts and countless others. Alba stood aside, calling on supporters to 'max the Yes vote'. Just what the Scottish Greens think they achieved by standing is for them to explain, with their total of votes barely greater than the very small Labour majority. Unionists are now crowing and the impact will be felt by the wider independence movement. It's a tragedy which will require work and change to come back from. It wasn't the fault of the SNP candidate any more than success can be attributed to her spectacularly poor Labour opponent. The polish of New Labour was forsaken, with Davy Russell a throwback to Labour candidates from days of yore when the party reigned across huge swathes of Scotland, its dead hand lying across the land. Under Alex Salmond's leadership, that Tammany Hall power was broken and Scotland was transformed for the better. We cannot allow those dark days to return. Remember that this was also a defeat for what little remains of the Labour left and those who still think Scotland can be transformed within the Union. Last week's result will be taken as an endorsement of Starmerism, legitimation of the austerity agenda and Labour's attacks on the poor and vulnerable. Those who have bravely spoken out will be hounded and party loyalists empowered. Responsibility for the defeat rests with the SNP leadership for both its lamentable by-election strategy, and its actions and failings over recent years. Circumstances had changed from last year and were favourable for SNP. The tidal clamour for change last July, which saw myself and my Alba colleague swept out of the UK Parliament along with numerous SNP MPs, had well and truly ebbed. Starmer's Labour were and are deeply unpopular. At the same time independence was polling well above 50% and even higher when the spectre of Farage and Reform was posed. All good, you'd think, for pushing the case for independence. READ MORE: SNP must turn support for independence into 'real political action', says Swinney That was what, after all, was done by Winnie Ewing all those years ago and decades before we even had our Parliament restored. She gave a vision of the land Scotland could be, contrasting it with the country it was, as pits and shipyards started to close and emigration continued. But independence wasn't mentioned by the SNP. It was the policy notable only for its absence in literature, on the doorsteps and in debate. Yet it was the unique selling point for the SNP. It was the one thing that carved them out from their principal opponents, Labour and Reform, and, even more than that, was backed by well over half of voters. That failure's not just inexplicable but unforgiveable. Instead, a strategy of 'stop Reform' was pushed. Just what was that meant to express other than avoiding having to answer for failings in their Scottish Government administration is hard to fathom. In politics, saying what you're for is always better than arguing what you're against. It motivates those who share your beliefs and can even earn respect or at least legitimation from opponents. Besides, Reform are not going to take power in Scotland – but only independence can ensure they are not foisted on us by being in the Union. The SNP leadership treated independence supporters in Hamilton with the same arrogance and disdain that they've treated the wider movement over recent years. A simple assumption that they'd have to vote for them and the backing of others could safely be pursued. Do what 'yer telt' and 'wheesht for indy'. But, as in 2017, where there's neither motivation nor articulation of independence, many simply stayed at home. The SNP did not lose support to Reform in Hamilton, instead they saw independence supporters say: 'What's the point of voting?' That compounded growing contempt for their failings in office and their lack of vision for the country. An obsession with gender and identity when what is wanted is an improvement in public services, whether health or housing, jobs or justice. Focusing on individual rights rather than the collective good at a time when communities are struggling. There has to be a coming together of the independence movement but that requires a recognition by SNP that they are only a part, albeit a major part, of it. The growing gap between support for independence and support for SNP tells a story and a bit of humility would go a long way. It also means that Holyrood 2026 has to be a plebiscite election and that to 'Max the Yes', it has to be vote Alba on the list.
New Statesman
7 days ago
- Business
- New Statesman
Inside No 10's new dysfunction
Keir Starmer's Downing Street was dysfunctional from its earliest days. Labour, senior figures often say, had a plan to win but not a plan to govern. Blame for this was attributed to Sue Gray, who resigned as Starmer's chief of staff after just four months in office and whose tenure still 'casts a long shadow' in the words of one government source. No 10 has strived ever since to recover from this false start. As well as the appointment of Morgan McSweeney as Gray's replacement, two Blair-era figures joined last November: Jonathan Powell as national security adviser and Liz Lloyd as director of policy delivery and innovation. In his memoir A Journey, Tony Blair writes of the latter that she brought 'order and discipline' and 'had an excellent temperament too: lovely to work with, honest and, underneath all the English feminine charm, quite steely. Above all, capable.' Powell, who was No 10 chief of staff from 1997-2007 (making him the longest-serving Blair aide), is regarded as one of the government's most successful hires. He is credited with helping to broker the US-Ukraine détente and overseeing a wider foreign policy reset (with Britain striking trade deals with the US, Europe and India). But Lloyd, who served as Blair's deputy chief of staff from 2005-07, is proving a more divisive figure. Insiders speak of tensions between herself and Stuart Ingham, the head of the No 10 Policy Unit and Starmer's longest-serving aide, who joined as a senior parliamentary researcher in December 2016. Ingham, who has consciously eschewed a media profile, is described by those who know him well as a cerebral social democrat (his PhD dissected the debate between the liberal philosopher John Rawls and the Marxist intellectual GA Cohen). 'If there's one person in the country who can define what Starmerism is, it's him,' an ally told me. Cabinet ministers liken his relationship with Starmer to that between a father and a son (Ingham survived an attempt by Gray to remove him). Yet during Labour's fraught early months in government, grandees such as historian Anthony Seldon and former cabinet secretary Gus O'Donnell complained that loyalty had come at the expense of experience. 'I do think there is a need for No 10 to have a lot more heavyweights in there – a lot more policy heavyweights,' said O'Donnell after Gray's resignation, recalling past Policy Unit heads such as David Miliband, Andrew Adonis and Geoff Mulgan. Such critiques helped prompt the appointment of Lloyd who is close to Pat McFadden, Starmer's chief Whitehall fixer ('what does Pat think?' the Prime Minister will often ask). But government sources speak of a difficult marriage between Lloyd – who is unashamedly Blairite in her outlook – and a broadly soft left Policy Unit (No 10 denied claims that Ingham, who now reports to Lloyd, threatened to resign over her arrival). Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Before her return to government, Lloyd held roles including group company secretary of Standard Chartered Bank and chief investment officer of British International Investment. Though some praise her aptitude and experience, others speak of a clash of worldviews. In one meeting on growth at the start of this year, Lloyd is said to have raised concerns over the government's abolition of non-dom tax status. 'People who operate with assumptions from 20 years ago are different to the people who were in the guts of this election campaign and who understand how we built our coalition,' a senior Labour source told me. Lloyd is also said to have expressed concerns over Bridget Phillipson's school reforms, which impose new requirements on Blair-era academies such as employing qualified teachers and following the national curriculum (a Phillipson source insisted that talk of divisions was 'nonsense'). The recent appointment of Oli de Botton, who co-founded a free school former Blair aide Peter Hyman, as Starmer's education adviser was viewed as a shift in emphasis. But intermittent speculation that the Education Secretary will be moved at the next cabinet reshuffle is downplayed. 'Keir really, really likes Bridget,' remarked one insider. A recurrent critique of Starmer's government, intensified by the recent U-turn over winter fuel payment cuts, is that it has lacked a clear philosophical direction. Both Blairites and the soft left, for different reasons, have been disappointed by Labour's first year in office. Some believe this is exacerbated by the marginalisation of the Policy Unit, which one observer described as 'demoralised, lacking purpose and cut out of the loop left, right and centre'. Two advisers, Tom Webb (health) and Nick Williams (planning and infrastructure), left last month and a third, Ravinder Athwal, who oversaw Labour's manifesto and led on the economy, will depart in July. Some on the party's soft left – which has openly challenged Reeves' fiscal approach in recent weeks – hope that a new economic adviser could serve as a counterweight to the Treasury but others contend that 'there isn't an economist in the world who could come in and persuade Keir to go against Rachel'. As Starmer's government strives for direction, insiders believe that relations between Lloyd and Ingham will be a key litmus test. 'He's a great survivor,' said one Labour source, predicting that the original Starmerite would ultimately outlast his new Blairite boss. [See also: Andy Burnham has made his leadership bid] Related
The Independent
17-03-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
First Thatcherism, now ‘Starmerism': How welfare reform could be the quiet revolution shaping Labour's future
We all know that there used to be no such thing as 'society' because there was an individualistic 'thing' called Thatcherism: a body of values, attitudes and policies personified by Margaret Thatcher. Should we, I wonder, now be speaking of ' Starmerism '? The answer to that, after a mere eight months of Labour government, is obviously 'not yet' – it's far too early. But what is emerging is a remarkable infusion of populism into Starmer's very traditional and conventional brand of social democracy. We see this almost every week now in the choices the Starmer administration has been making – on the two-child benefit rule, the tougher rhetoric and messaging on immigration, on shredding overseas aid, boosting defence spending, downgrading net zero by expanding airports, sacking half of NHS England's staff – and, now, some cuts to social security. Only the cuts to pensioners' winter fuel allowance could be said to be something Nigel Farage wouldn't back. Yet the surprising thing is we still expect mass protests and Commons drama when the work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall presents her package of cuts, which, at about £5 billion to £6 billion, aren't all that big in the great scheme of things. We have not yet come to terms with the fact that this is the most right-wing (using the term loosely) parliamentary Labour Party in history and she won't encounter that much trouble. Labour MPs are, by historical Labour standards and recent Conservative standards, incredibly and impressively disciplined. The 2024 cohort don't actually seem to have discovered that there's a voting lobby for 'No' in the Commons; or perhaps, more generously and realistically, they actually agree with Starmer and Reeves, broadly, and don't think it worth capsizing the government and giving the Tories some easy talking points for a merely symbolic protest. They really do think that the government has a 'moral duty' to design the welfare system such that people are encouraged to work; and they readily accept that the country can't afford the prospective increase in the social security bill. So, while there may not be such a thing as 'Starmerism', there are many Starmerites now, a situation greatly enhanced by the last general election. More than 250 of Labour's 400 or so MPs were elected to the Commons under Sir Keir 's leadership (either in by-elections or the general election) and they owe their seats to him. Unlike before 1997 or other previous landslides, Labour took special care to 'vet' their candidates, even in the most improbable prospects for a Labour gain, and the results are apparent – a pragmatic bunch who are unusually well-attuned to public opinion and with little use for socialist principles (as we think they are). Perhaps these mostly younger people are looking for their first ministerial role; but it is quite the quiet revolution from the days of Jeremy Corbyn – and a textbook example of how even the most beleaguered or deranged political parties can self-regenerate in a miraculous short time. By way of illustrating the contrast to the Corbyn regime, 36 Labour MPs in the ' Get Britain Working Group ' recently wrote a letter to Kendall, actually urging her to get on with 'fundamental change to our welfare system to support work'. That has never happened before. The rebellions have been confined to 'the usual suspects'; and centres of dissent outside the Commons are but part of the Labour movement. Trade unionists and figures such as the mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham and ex-minister Ed Balls are a little less under the spell of this doctrine of Starmerism, which is best described as 'extreme pragmatism'. It is indeed remarkable how compliant the parliamentary Labour Party has been in such difficult circumstances and there seems every sign that the proposed changes – cuts – to working-age sickness and disability benefits being devised by Reeves and Kendall will go through. According to the standard script of the life of a Labour government, what should have been happening since Rachel Reeves launched her first assaults on the welfare state shortly after the election is a series of parliamentary rebellions by disgruntled Labour backbenchers, resulting in knife-edge Commons votes, devastating speeches from ex-ministers who resigned on socialist principle, a bloody party conference and rumblings about a leadership challenge, plus a fair amount of jostling for the succession from an array of pretenders to the throne. Every Labour government since Ramsay McDonald's a century ago has suffered from a crisis of confidence because of 'tough choices', often forced on a Labour cabinet in some economic crisis. It even happened under the supposed iron rule of Tony Blair, who had to face down an unexpectedly large revolt on cuts to child benefit in 1997 – 47 Labour MPs voted against the Government, some 100 abstained. One minister and two Private Parliamentary Secretaries resigned their posts, and a ministerial aide was sacked ahead of the crucial vote (which was still won comfortably). The Callaghan government barely survived the IMF crisis in 1976, and laid the foundations for a generation of internal civil war. Nye Bevan quit the Attlee government over NHS charges in 1951 – and consequent divisions in the party kept it out of power for more than a decade. Europe, economic crises and trade union reform almost broke the Wilson governments. The voters rewarded such incompetence appropriately. Starmer's Labour Party seems very different. His task has, ironically, been made easier by the crisis in the public finances, which has forced so many of these unpalatable decisions on the party. He has increasingly found himself following – rather than leading – public opinion on 'culture war' issues, with the latest gossip suggesting some weakening of support for the European Convention on Human Rights (because of the way ' family rights ' interfere with deportations). The rise of Reform UK has made Labour MPs sensitive to the kind of grievances Farage exploits. But fundamentally – and in contrast to every past Labour administration – there is simply no credible 'socialist alternative to what the government is doing. There is no leftist rival to Starmer – no modern-day successor to Bevan, Tony Benn, Ken Livingstone or, indeed, Corbyn, who rather proved the point at the 2019 election. Starmer promised 'change', and nowhere is it more true than in his own party. It seems he meant it.
