You should never underestimate someone who was the only one of four working class children to pass the eleven plus and go to university and then rise to the top of the law profession. Steely true grit. Thanks for voicing my thoughts so succinctly!
Superb piece and excellent analysis. I think it's a fascinating dichotomy that all too often those who care most about politics are those who least like how politics is done. But it is in the doing that Starmer is excelling.
Great piece (and yes, as an ex-Mumsnet staffer, can confirm politicians and their teams are usually extremely careful about what they say about single sex spaces when they appear on the site - very few of them arrive unprepared with a line to take).
I think your point about needing to have some arguments out loud is really critical though. I worry Starmer is too much of a lawyer in his bones - he can make an elegant case but he can’t do a stump speech. I don’t feel I have any strong sense of what he ^believes^, just the things he is prepared to advocate for. Maybe that’s enough given the smoking ruins left by the conservatives, but it’s a weakness I think.
I'm still hanging in there as a Labour MP hoping that Starmer is playing the long game, particularly on Women's rights and the whole insanity of "gender ideology".
Graham Linehan just gave a speech at the Battle of Ideas. He posits (and he is absolutely right) that the "trans issue" is the leading issue of the day. Its not simple about being "kind". The ideology is destroying freedom of speech, expression and thought.
It demands and is trying to get it written *in law* that to even question the ideology is a "hate crime". There are many threads to that ideology.
- Attack on Women (we were the front line - attack half the population, turn some of them into collaborators and other/blacken the name of the rest and you have majority of society under your control.
- Catch the children young - infiltrate the schools and get the idiot teachers to repeat the LIE that there is "no sex" that one can "change sex" that one's "gender" is immutable but at the same time flexible. Catch those who are vulnerable and teach that if they do NOT conform to a specific, narrow set of "sex based rules" for their sex (see - its relevant when that ideology wants it to be) then they are the "opposite" sex or "neither" sex and MUST HAVE DRUGS and SURGERY. "Think of the children" comes the cry"
- Change the definitions of basic and fundamental terms that our ancestors knew instinctively. Which actually means further attacks on one half of the human population by *removing* the words that describe them and what life experience they happen to be going through. Refer to them by sexual body parts and functions - thereby dehumanising and othering.
Pass their rightful words to the other more powerful half of the population. Make it a crime to complain. Literally.
- Redefine sexual orientation thereby removing at one stroke the possibility of any "sexual orientation" that is rooted in biology.
- Reject the science entirely.
Unless Starmer understands ALL the above and properly acts on it, we will find ourselves in a horrific situation (that other countries have already) whereby a person can be arrested and charged and imprisoned simply by telling the truth.
If as you say Starmer is playing a long game, he has to be clear on this topic one side or the other before the next GE.
I really not happy with the Tories but they are more likely to stop this ideology that attacks, threatens the very basis of human life and thus democracy than Labour are.
Labour is still vacillating on what a woman is - pretending its anyone who says they are. Which as we know, is men.
I have never been able to see the supposed antisemitism of Corbyn, and I speak with some authority, having personally experienced real antisemitism on the streets of Dublin growing up in the '40s & '50s and in school classrooms (from both fellow pupils and teachers who could never decide whether they hated Germans or Jews most -- remember there was an Irish republicanism that always subscribed to 'our enemy's enemy is our friend', Dev signed the German Embassy book of condolences on Hitler's death and we learned years later about the sympathies of the then Irish President); and less crude, more 'genteel' forms of the Judeophobia at university; the cruder, street form included my once, a child, having to wipe the spit off my face from one wretch; but having to ignore the blantant intellectual form from one lecturer during the course of a lecture. How times change: today he'd rightly be up before, at least, the college authorities. But not then, we just shrugged and moved on.) And as ever, we move on.
No progressive leftwinger can approve of what Israel has been and still is doing daily to Palestinians (except those who are PeP, progressive except Palestine). Israeli politicians and spokespersons, religious and secular community leaders elsewhere have long claimed that Israel speaks and acts in the name of all Jews everywhere on the planet. It's easy for people of goodwill to take those people at their word. In which case it makes (in the eyes of some) criticism of Israeli policy, or more radical criticism of the way Israel came into existence, synonymous with Jew-hatred. But when I was young antisemitism was quite simply hatred of, or prejudice against, Jews *as Jews*.
Yes, Corbyn is antizionist as are many Jews besides myself. We all know that a Corbyn-led government would had taken a very different line with Israel from that of all previous UK governments: in respect of the settlements on (what's left of) Palestinian land, of arms sales to Israel and much else besides. *Not* antisemitism but good solid leftwing principles of the kind that Corbyn's administration would have applied to dealings with other human-rights-abusing countries around the world. (I have a letter from a then shadow cabinet minister endorsing those policies, although it was not that person's brief.)
Such an approach for sure arouses the historically based existential anxieties of my fellow Jews, especially those who adhere to an Israelocentric form of Judaism. Many of us are of course vigilant, and rightly so -- antisemitism, in the words of the late Conor Cruise O'Brien, is 'a very light sleeper'. After all, much of it is long embedded in the culture.
Of course the establishment -- in the City, the military and elsewhere -- were nervous of and hated the possibility of a radical leftwing government and they ran a quite brilliant campaign against Corbyn, but what disturbed and appalled me utterly was the way in which so many prominent Jews and Jewish organisations allowed themselves to be associated with it, to the point of seeming at many points to be actually leading it, however unfair that perception might have been. It was absurd to have to read letters in the papers from Jews saying they'd have to leave Britain if Corbyn won.
I realise that there were and are political reasons why Starmer has felt he had to act as he did in respect of the left generally and Corbyn in particular. Total purge. But it's profoundly dishonest. And it's worrying. I can't wholly share the opinion (really a hope) that once in power, Starmer will change, show more courage, move to the left, implement radical change. I've seen such things so seldom happen. It just reminds me of Blair's 'We campaigned as New Labour, and we'll govern as New Labour'.
I'll have to vote, I probably can't let myself not. But as so often before, it will be a vote against the Tories, not really *for* Labour. And I think Starmer must be banking on that calculation throughout the country: he knows we've nowhere else to go except in a few marginal constituencies. And that's true where I live.
Great piece, best analysis of Starmer, strengths and potential weaknesses, I have read. And OJ knows full well he's been had, and it's beautiful to watch his reaction to it!
Great piece that articulates much about Starmer that has gone unnoticed (or unsaid). I think his much discussed lack of charisma may be a political asset during this phase. People have moaned about being victims of his duplicity/ruthlessness, but the public can't quite believe that someone so dull could be so calculating.
I thought it was telling that he didn't pursue music at uni because he felt he didn't have the easy natural talent of some other musical high-achievers. That's an unusual level self-knowledge and vision for anyone, especially at 18. So I can imagine he currently has a very low tolerance for Labour focusing on anything that doesn't contribute to electoral success.
Wonderful, Helen. We’ve been pondering the ‘lack of passion and vision’ charge on our Northern Spin podcast. I think Starmer is both a product of his background, but also of these rather desperate times. He’s sensible enough to know that after 12 (soon to be 14) years of promises on the side of buses and lots of not getting stuff like Brexit done this country’s had quite enough of bullshitting hucksters. He can’t do the Obama Hope thing easily, but he’s also smart enough to know he shouldn’t try even if he could. Just be better, and honest.
Also particularly love the line about having OJ as an enemy being on a whiteboard of objectives.
Great article. Straightforward principled politicians face an uphill struggle that stems from our first-past-the-post system. Parties are forced to be coalitions who, if not careful, spend most of their energies fighting each other.
I rather enjoyed that, I’m a disillusioned Tory and my vote is very much up for grabs. Whilst his failure to fight the battles just quietly announcing changes might be good for party management it doesn’t give me anything to grab hold of, I guess I need to see some of these fights to jump - and a few more of the crazy Corbynistas getting shoved, but there are crazys on both sides I suppose, sadly many in seats for life.
Thanks Helen! I sometimes wonder if people like Owen Jones have the self awareness to understand they are playing a role that is helpful to Starmer and Labour and that their personas are all a great big 4D chess political strategy. And then I remember that most people are winging it most of the time and he’s probably just a big baby that doesn’t like losing.
Starmer is EVIL:Conniving,stealth,calculating,steeped in anti democratic WEF influence.He is pure politics.We the People cannot afford this type anymore.
You should never underestimate someone who was the only one of four working class children to pass the eleven plus and go to university and then rise to the top of the law profession. Steely true grit. Thanks for voicing my thoughts so succinctly!
This is such a useful and enjoyable one-stop analysis of his leadership thusfar. And I loved the line about him being a stage magician.
Superb piece and excellent analysis. I think it's a fascinating dichotomy that all too often those who care most about politics are those who least like how politics is done. But it is in the doing that Starmer is excelling.
Great piece (and yes, as an ex-Mumsnet staffer, can confirm politicians and their teams are usually extremely careful about what they say about single sex spaces when they appear on the site - very few of them arrive unprepared with a line to take).
I think your point about needing to have some arguments out loud is really critical though. I worry Starmer is too much of a lawyer in his bones - he can make an elegant case but he can’t do a stump speech. I don’t feel I have any strong sense of what he ^believes^, just the things he is prepared to advocate for. Maybe that’s enough given the smoking ruins left by the conservatives, but it’s a weakness I think.
I'm still hanging in there as a Labour MP hoping that Starmer is playing the long game, particularly on Women's rights and the whole insanity of "gender ideology".
Graham Linehan just gave a speech at the Battle of Ideas. He posits (and he is absolutely right) that the "trans issue" is the leading issue of the day. Its not simple about being "kind". The ideology is destroying freedom of speech, expression and thought.
It demands and is trying to get it written *in law* that to even question the ideology is a "hate crime". There are many threads to that ideology.
- Attack on Women (we were the front line - attack half the population, turn some of them into collaborators and other/blacken the name of the rest and you have majority of society under your control.
- Catch the children young - infiltrate the schools and get the idiot teachers to repeat the LIE that there is "no sex" that one can "change sex" that one's "gender" is immutable but at the same time flexible. Catch those who are vulnerable and teach that if they do NOT conform to a specific, narrow set of "sex based rules" for their sex (see - its relevant when that ideology wants it to be) then they are the "opposite" sex or "neither" sex and MUST HAVE DRUGS and SURGERY. "Think of the children" comes the cry"
- Change the definitions of basic and fundamental terms that our ancestors knew instinctively. Which actually means further attacks on one half of the human population by *removing* the words that describe them and what life experience they happen to be going through. Refer to them by sexual body parts and functions - thereby dehumanising and othering.
Pass their rightful words to the other more powerful half of the population. Make it a crime to complain. Literally.
- Redefine sexual orientation thereby removing at one stroke the possibility of any "sexual orientation" that is rooted in biology.
- Reject the science entirely.
Unless Starmer understands ALL the above and properly acts on it, we will find ourselves in a horrific situation (that other countries have already) whereby a person can be arrested and charged and imprisoned simply by telling the truth.
If as you say Starmer is playing a long game, he has to be clear on this topic one side or the other before the next GE.
I really not happy with the Tories but they are more likely to stop this ideology that attacks, threatens the very basis of human life and thus democracy than Labour are.
Labour is still vacillating on what a woman is - pretending its anyone who says they are. Which as we know, is men.
Great article, thanks.
I have twice heard Starmer in interviews say, unprompted, 'I know who I am'...in a proud/defiant tone.
Think this fits in with your idea that he refuses to *narrate*.
As you say, he has so far used this weakness as a strength. Sign of a mature operator.
But I agree with you that sometimes in politics you need to tell a story and argue a case openly, and he may yet fall down there.
But he does have a big advantage in all this. As your wise former colleague Stephen Bush says, he has a 'Prime Minister-shaped head'.
I have never been able to see the supposed antisemitism of Corbyn, and I speak with some authority, having personally experienced real antisemitism on the streets of Dublin growing up in the '40s & '50s and in school classrooms (from both fellow pupils and teachers who could never decide whether they hated Germans or Jews most -- remember there was an Irish republicanism that always subscribed to 'our enemy's enemy is our friend', Dev signed the German Embassy book of condolences on Hitler's death and we learned years later about the sympathies of the then Irish President); and less crude, more 'genteel' forms of the Judeophobia at university; the cruder, street form included my once, a child, having to wipe the spit off my face from one wretch; but having to ignore the blantant intellectual form from one lecturer during the course of a lecture. How times change: today he'd rightly be up before, at least, the college authorities. But not then, we just shrugged and moved on.) And as ever, we move on.
No progressive leftwinger can approve of what Israel has been and still is doing daily to Palestinians (except those who are PeP, progressive except Palestine). Israeli politicians and spokespersons, religious and secular community leaders elsewhere have long claimed that Israel speaks and acts in the name of all Jews everywhere on the planet. It's easy for people of goodwill to take those people at their word. In which case it makes (in the eyes of some) criticism of Israeli policy, or more radical criticism of the way Israel came into existence, synonymous with Jew-hatred. But when I was young antisemitism was quite simply hatred of, or prejudice against, Jews *as Jews*.
Yes, Corbyn is antizionist as are many Jews besides myself. We all know that a Corbyn-led government would had taken a very different line with Israel from that of all previous UK governments: in respect of the settlements on (what's left of) Palestinian land, of arms sales to Israel and much else besides. *Not* antisemitism but good solid leftwing principles of the kind that Corbyn's administration would have applied to dealings with other human-rights-abusing countries around the world. (I have a letter from a then shadow cabinet minister endorsing those policies, although it was not that person's brief.)
Such an approach for sure arouses the historically based existential anxieties of my fellow Jews, especially those who adhere to an Israelocentric form of Judaism. Many of us are of course vigilant, and rightly so -- antisemitism, in the words of the late Conor Cruise O'Brien, is 'a very light sleeper'. After all, much of it is long embedded in the culture.
Of course the establishment -- in the City, the military and elsewhere -- were nervous of and hated the possibility of a radical leftwing government and they ran a quite brilliant campaign against Corbyn, but what disturbed and appalled me utterly was the way in which so many prominent Jews and Jewish organisations allowed themselves to be associated with it, to the point of seeming at many points to be actually leading it, however unfair that perception might have been. It was absurd to have to read letters in the papers from Jews saying they'd have to leave Britain if Corbyn won.
I realise that there were and are political reasons why Starmer has felt he had to act as he did in respect of the left generally and Corbyn in particular. Total purge. But it's profoundly dishonest. And it's worrying. I can't wholly share the opinion (really a hope) that once in power, Starmer will change, show more courage, move to the left, implement radical change. I've seen such things so seldom happen. It just reminds me of Blair's 'We campaigned as New Labour, and we'll govern as New Labour'.
I'll have to vote, I probably can't let myself not. But as so often before, it will be a vote against the Tories, not really *for* Labour. And I think Starmer must be banking on that calculation throughout the country: he knows we've nowhere else to go except in a few marginal constituencies. And that's true where I live.
Brian Robinson (Dr) - Milton Keynes
Great piece, best analysis of Starmer, strengths and potential weaknesses, I have read. And OJ knows full well he's been had, and it's beautiful to watch his reaction to it!
Great piece that articulates much about Starmer that has gone unnoticed (or unsaid). I think his much discussed lack of charisma may be a political asset during this phase. People have moaned about being victims of his duplicity/ruthlessness, but the public can't quite believe that someone so dull could be so calculating.
I thought it was telling that he didn't pursue music at uni because he felt he didn't have the easy natural talent of some other musical high-achievers. That's an unusual level self-knowledge and vision for anyone, especially at 18. So I can imagine he currently has a very low tolerance for Labour focusing on anything that doesn't contribute to electoral success.
Wonderful, Helen. We’ve been pondering the ‘lack of passion and vision’ charge on our Northern Spin podcast. I think Starmer is both a product of his background, but also of these rather desperate times. He’s sensible enough to know that after 12 (soon to be 14) years of promises on the side of buses and lots of not getting stuff like Brexit done this country’s had quite enough of bullshitting hucksters. He can’t do the Obama Hope thing easily, but he’s also smart enough to know he shouldn’t try even if he could. Just be better, and honest.
Also particularly love the line about having OJ as an enemy being on a whiteboard of objectives.
Riveting: thank you.
Crucial for me that he has spoken up about fee-paying schools. Wish ‘fee-paying’ were the preferred adjective; ‘public’ and ‘private’ sanitise.
Great article. Straightforward principled politicians face an uphill struggle that stems from our first-past-the-post system. Parties are forced to be coalitions who, if not careful, spend most of their energies fighting each other.
I rather enjoyed that, I’m a disillusioned Tory and my vote is very much up for grabs. Whilst his failure to fight the battles just quietly announcing changes might be good for party management it doesn’t give me anything to grab hold of, I guess I need to see some of these fights to jump - and a few more of the crazy Corbynistas getting shoved, but there are crazys on both sides I suppose, sadly many in seats for life.
Thanks Helen! I sometimes wonder if people like Owen Jones have the self awareness to understand they are playing a role that is helpful to Starmer and Labour and that their personas are all a great big 4D chess political strategy. And then I remember that most people are winging it most of the time and he’s probably just a big baby that doesn’t like losing.
Starmer is EVIL:Conniving,stealth,calculating,steeped in anti democratic WEF influence.He is pure politics.We the People cannot afford this type anymore.
Quite different subject - came across this and thought of you - https://www.presentindicative.com/collections/astronomy/products/bluestocking-enamel-pin