Will Labour really be able to stay in government for the next 15 to 20 years? Here are arguments for both possible answers to that question I got this comment from a reader on my post from last week: It's too early to say, but it is possible that, with an electorally shattered post-Sunak Conservative party rolling around in the dust and turning a) right and b) on each other, a neo-centrist Starmer party will start to resemble the 19th century Whigs (the Liberal predecessor).
Hi Nick, thanks for picking up on this slightly abstruse comment. I just originally felt that the Labour leadership's schtick for some time has switched to 'we are the people who decide when the time is right for what reform when and which faction to favour' which is really very Whiggish. (Their 'oh we might actually be OK on railway nationalisation having ruled it out previously' announcement is of a piece with this, as is the calculated we-could-go-either-way-but-we'll-be-right-whatever-happens exercises in fence-sitting on trans rights and women's rights).
The difference is the aristrocratic Whigs - before party organisations - rooted this in their inherited dynastic privilege (basically they had enough money to not be hit hard by conceding ground to the lower orders and some of them were loosely descended from people who'd opposed James II's attempt to establish a more Catholic, autocratic monarchy on French lines) which made their clique more flexible. Both Palmerston and Gladstone started out as Tories and were empowered by the Whigs deciding to do business with them. Palmerston went 'native' as a Whig, Gladstone didn't and retained his own technocratic / ideologue way of doing business, in the process inventing the 'masses against the classes' rhetoric that showed his distrust of aristo cliques and has been largely co-opted by UK socialism and the Labour movement (although he was of course no socialist). Starmer has no ideological or rhetorical concept of himself as anything special other than as being the leader of the Labour party (if he sees himself as someone having unique insight other Labour members don't have in being trained by the UK legal profession and civil service he's keeping it to himself).
Whilst Starmer probably has no need to recruit technocrats, he may still need to recruit more networkers and powerbrokers. But yes, I cannot see Osborne or Cameron or any centrist Tory popping up in any way as part of a Labour project to absorb or neutralise the centre-right. Brown's attempt to do this during the 'GOAT' fad backfired and probably in some ways heated-up the resentment of the Left which eventually empowered Corbyn.
All the attention is, at the moment, on the implosion of the Tory Party and the splintering of the right-centrists. What is often ignored is that a movement is developing on the left, which is going to do a very similar thing to the Labour Party.
The Labour Party has long since deserted the working class. At present there is essentially no significant working class representation in the HoC. The economic and social situation now is completely different than that which existed in the mid-1800s. Back then, while the standard of living was much lower than today, the economy was growing. In addition the British people were a mostly united homogenous group. Today, Britain is an overcrowded Tower of Babel, and the economy is deteriorating quickly, with no improvement in sight. The Joseph Rowntree foundation estimates that 28% of British children are living in poverty, a significant proportion of that 28% in destitution. That number will inexorably increase; possibly to 40% by 2030, 60% by 2040, or likely, even worse.
There is no chance that any govt. is going to be able to turn the British economy around. The problems that exist from the multiple policy errors are now too serious to be corrected.
Do not underestimate George Galloway. He sees an opportunity to build a real working class party which has the potential to render the Labour Party a rump of academics and middle class hand-wringers, similar to the Lib-Dems. George has a huge advantage over Starmer, or any conceivable Tory, Labour or Lib-Dem leader; he is honest.
Starmer has been described by Peter Oborne, accurately, as the MI-5 candidate. He is an establishment stooge who will do as he is told and get his peerage.
The greatest problem facing any British govt. now is the lack of human capital in Britain. Year by year, hundreds of thousands emigrate. They are the ones with professional, technical or trades qualifications, without whom no recovery is even remotely possible. And the emigration avalanche continues.
Meanwhile Britain is flooded with 3rd worlders, many sick, unskilled, virtually unemployable, illiterate and innumerate in their own languages, never mind english, destined to be wards of the state for ever.
This is what British politicians since WW2 have brought Britain to.
PMQs yesterday showed both sides of the problem with Angela Rayner. She took on the subject of housing head on, but couldn’t resist a cruel dig at Sunak’s height. Her volatility could be an asset but also a problem. She needs to be given the housing brief and the leasehold problem to sort out and kept away from the media.
Labour’s historic weakness is principle over power. They are more susceptible to the ideas of “we need to refresh ourselves in opposition “, or “this is a good election to lose”, and in a blink three or four general elections are lost. For the Tories, it’s get into power and then sort out the rest.
Hi Nick, thanks for picking up on this slightly abstruse comment. I just originally felt that the Labour leadership's schtick for some time has switched to 'we are the people who decide when the time is right for what reform when and which faction to favour' which is really very Whiggish. (Their 'oh we might actually be OK on railway nationalisation having ruled it out previously' announcement is of a piece with this, as is the calculated we-could-go-either-way-but-we'll-be-right-whatever-happens exercises in fence-sitting on trans rights and women's rights).
The difference is the aristrocratic Whigs - before party organisations - rooted this in their inherited dynastic privilege (basically they had enough money to not be hit hard by conceding ground to the lower orders and some of them were loosely descended from people who'd opposed James II's attempt to establish a more Catholic, autocratic monarchy on French lines) which made their clique more flexible. Both Palmerston and Gladstone started out as Tories and were empowered by the Whigs deciding to do business with them. Palmerston went 'native' as a Whig, Gladstone didn't and retained his own technocratic / ideologue way of doing business, in the process inventing the 'masses against the classes' rhetoric that showed his distrust of aristo cliques and has been largely co-opted by UK socialism and the Labour movement (although he was of course no socialist). Starmer has no ideological or rhetorical concept of himself as anything special other than as being the leader of the Labour party (if he sees himself as someone having unique insight other Labour members don't have in being trained by the UK legal profession and civil service he's keeping it to himself).
Whilst Starmer probably has no need to recruit technocrats, he may still need to recruit more networkers and powerbrokers. But yes, I cannot see Osborne or Cameron or any centrist Tory popping up in any way as part of a Labour project to absorb or neutralise the centre-right. Brown's attempt to do this during the 'GOAT' fad backfired and probably in some ways heated-up the resentment of the Left which eventually empowered Corbyn.
All the attention is, at the moment, on the implosion of the Tory Party and the splintering of the right-centrists. What is often ignored is that a movement is developing on the left, which is going to do a very similar thing to the Labour Party.
The Labour Party has long since deserted the working class. At present there is essentially no significant working class representation in the HoC. The economic and social situation now is completely different than that which existed in the mid-1800s. Back then, while the standard of living was much lower than today, the economy was growing. In addition the British people were a mostly united homogenous group. Today, Britain is an overcrowded Tower of Babel, and the economy is deteriorating quickly, with no improvement in sight. The Joseph Rowntree foundation estimates that 28% of British children are living in poverty, a significant proportion of that 28% in destitution. That number will inexorably increase; possibly to 40% by 2030, 60% by 2040, or likely, even worse.
There is no chance that any govt. is going to be able to turn the British economy around. The problems that exist from the multiple policy errors are now too serious to be corrected.
Do not underestimate George Galloway. He sees an opportunity to build a real working class party which has the potential to render the Labour Party a rump of academics and middle class hand-wringers, similar to the Lib-Dems. George has a huge advantage over Starmer, or any conceivable Tory, Labour or Lib-Dem leader; he is honest.
Starmer has been described by Peter Oborne, accurately, as the MI-5 candidate. He is an establishment stooge who will do as he is told and get his peerage.
The greatest problem facing any British govt. now is the lack of human capital in Britain. Year by year, hundreds of thousands emigrate. They are the ones with professional, technical or trades qualifications, without whom no recovery is even remotely possible. And the emigration avalanche continues.
Meanwhile Britain is flooded with 3rd worlders, many sick, unskilled, virtually unemployable, illiterate and innumerate in their own languages, never mind english, destined to be wards of the state for ever.
This is what British politicians since WW2 have brought Britain to.
PMQs yesterday showed both sides of the problem with Angela Rayner. She took on the subject of housing head on, but couldn’t resist a cruel dig at Sunak’s height. Her volatility could be an asset but also a problem. She needs to be given the housing brief and the leasehold problem to sort out and kept away from the media.
Labour’s historic weakness is principle over power. They are more susceptible to the ideas of “we need to refresh ourselves in opposition “, or “this is a good election to lose”, and in a blink three or four general elections are lost. For the Tories, it’s get into power and then sort out the rest.