Thread by @docrussjackson

#THREAD

Starmer's Labour risks losing even more of the membership & union support, meaning it would lose the majority of its funding & be in the position of having to appease powerful corporate & elite interests.

More importantly, it runs the risk of losing its identity & soul.

Google 'Keir Starmer & Labour' & you're directed to an uninspiring webpage, entitled "Reform & Unite". 🥱

In "The Labour Party Under Keir Starmer: ‘Thanks, But no “isms” Please!’", Politics Prof Eunice Goes casts a critical eye over Starmer's Labour:

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.11…

Portraying himself "as a competent & unifying leader who has turned the page on Corbyn’s legacy of factionalism & radical politics", & 'downplaying Labour’s socialism', suggests Starmer’s strategy is one of "ideological quietism" that seeks to win the wide support of voters.

However, Professor Goes identifies that there is "a growing impatience from Labour’s different factions with the ideological murkiness this approach entails. Several figures in the party, including several of his supporters, have started to question Starmer’s political acumen".

Others "decry the absence of a big idea that can mobilise voters, & "some feel that the party is failing to seize the window of opportunity opened by the pandemic & by the impact of Brexit to propose a transformational agenda."

It's clear that I & many others entirely agree.

At time of writing her article, Goes correctly noted that "Labour’s younger supporters are equally unimpressed, though Starmer can perhaps rely on their generosity & patience".

With the recent public announcements of Young Labour, this patience seems to have finally run out.

Initially at least, Goes suggests younger Labour supporters 'took comfort in' Starmer’s vague promise to fix the ‘structuralaws’ in Britain’s economy & create a ‘greener, cleaner & fairer society’ - what James Mills calls a sort of ‘respectable radicalism’.

Goes (again, imho correctly) speculated that younger voters may not be "as accommodating if Labour’s broader moral range also involves the dilution of ideological commitments in key policy areas such as gender & racial equality, immigration or welfare policies".

Despite this not insignificant problem, according to Goes, the more substantive issue Starmer is failing to capitalise on is that "the centre of political gravity is shifting leftwards" & "the emerging new ideological consensus favours socialist or social democratic solutions".

Goes finishes her recent article by strongly suggesting to Starmer's Labour that "this is perhaps the time to be bold & propose more than 'technocratic competence' & mere tweaks to conservative policies."

She generously speculates that Starmer "seems to have understood this."

Goes notes that Starmer has spoken about ‘fork in the road moments’ & about his desire ‘to begin a new chapter’ in British politics', but thus far "he seems to think that it is too early in the electoral cycle to reveal Labour’s agenda."

We all know "a lot can happen before the next election" (look at the dramatic changes to politics, the economy, the media & society since the last election in 2019) & Goes sensibly warns that "Labour’s most popular & plausible ideas can be ‘stolen’ by the Conservatives."

But Goes also notes that "waiting for the perfect moment to set out Labour’s stall involves some risks too. Windows of opportunity for radical change are rare occurrences in politics. Crucially, those ‘window of opportunity’ moments do not merely rely on favourable timing:

they need to be opened by active & purposeful political entrepreneurs who know how to present that transformational agenda to the powerful actors who will sponsor it & normalise it amongst voters."

Are the people capable of fulfilling this role favoured by Keir Starmer?

Goes concludes: "If we consider all these steps, the 2024 general election is not such a distant prospect. For these reasons, it is perhaps time for Labour to follow the new political winds & start unveiling that transformative new chapter that Starmer keeps hinting at." I agree.

I just want to quickly add a few more extracts from Professor Goes' writing, this time from her 2017 chapter '‘Jez, We Can!’ Labour’s Campaign: Defeat with a Taste of Victory', published in the comprehensive book about #GE2017: 'Britain Votes 2017'.

d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/57100344/Labou…

I include these extracts because I feel they respond directly to one of Starmer's key (imho condescending) messages in his "Reform & Unite" statement, that: "We owe it to our members & our country to be a professional, effective campaigning organisation that is geared to win."

As Prof Goes says in her chapter about #GE2017, "Labour’s better than expected results raised important questions about our understanding of the mechanics of voting behaviour" - which I'm not convinced that Starmer or the people behind the scenes at Labour HQ, have even asked.

Prof Goes suggests Labour's much better than expected results at #GE2017 "challenged the idea that electoral campaigns & party ideologies do not matter & that most voters base their electoral choices on valence issues & on the personality of leaders."

"The seven-week long electoral campaign questioned these assumptions. In particular, the electoral results showed that voters react differently when offered genuine ideological choice."

Imho, if Starmer's Labour isn't careful, this insight will be disregarded to their detriment.

"Above all, the (#GE2017) results showed that Labour was the beneficiary of the sea change in public attitudes about taxation, public spending & the role of the state in the economy."

Sea changes in public attitudes do not easily dissipate & Labour would be foolish to ignore it.

"The British Social Attitudes Survey (June 2017) indicates voters are not only tired of permanent austerity but are starting to be aware of the wider impact in the public realm of public spending cuts & of the small state ideology that has governed Britain since the 1980s."

This article was written before both #GE2019 & the pandemic, but imho, the big questions around the role of the state/Govt, climate change, deregulation, taxation, & inadequate welfare & public services, require bold, innovative, & radical answers - not 'technocratic tinkering'.