Who is Keir Starmer and why might he be the next PM of Great Britain?
If you’re been following the upcoming British election – July 4 – you’ll have heard that the Labour Party is poised for a huge victory, perhaps as much of a parliamentary majority as 150 seats. As best I can tell, it seems to be a backlash against the recent Tory governments rather than any groundswell of love for the left. The British Conservative Party haven’t been very conservative either fiscally or otherwise, and Boris Johnson squandered a lot of goodwill with his COVID policies and hypocritical personal behavior while in office. And no one is enthusiastic about the bland Rishi Sunak, whose achievements have been underwhelming.
The Conservatives are widely perceived to have run out of chances and run out of steam. Thus, the pivot to Labour. But here’s the thing – why do people who are angry at the Tories for not having kept their promises think that a great way to deal with that would be to vote for the left? Isn’t that “from the frying pan into the fire”? And yet in the past I’ve seen that sort of reaction here, too; “I’ll show them! I’ll vote for something far worse!”
It’s interesting, also, that the head of Labour, a man named Keir Starmer, has positioned himself as a moderate. Is he in fact as moderate as he says? I certainly don’t know, but I do know that he’s the head of a party that isn’t moderate, and in recent years (although not now) he has supported things like the nationalization of major industries. Here’s some information:
A few days into the general election campaign, Keir Starmer surprised some voters by declaring himself a socialist. “I would describe myself as a socialist. I describe myself as a progressive. I’d describe myself as somebody who always puts the country first and party second,” he said. …
The Labour leadership shows little inclination to introduce radical policies, renationalise on any scale or boot the bosses out. Its hallmarks are political caution, economic stability and reassuring business leaders – not exactly a rerun of 1917. The expectations of many who describe themselves as socialists are low, and they may get even lower as the election campaign goes on.
Clear as mud.
Much more here:
Are Starmer’s milder positions just a ploy to get elected, and after that he will pivot to the real agenda – either voluntarily or as a result of pressure from his left flank? I don’t know, but if I had to guess my answer would be in the affirmative.
NOTE: A bit of trivia about Starmer is that he went to school with Andrew Sullivan
[Starmer] passed the 11-plus examination and gained entry to Reigate Grammar School, then a voluntary aided selective grammar school. The school was converted into an independent fee-paying school in 1976, while he was a student. He was exempt from paying fees until the age of 16, and his sixth-form study fees were paid by a bursary he received from the private school’s charity.Among his classmates were the musician Norman Cook, alongside whom Starmer took violin lessons; Andrew Cooper, who went on to become a Conservative peer; and future conservative journalist Andrew Sullivan. According to Starmer, he and Sullivan “fought over everything … Politics, religion. You name it.”
I wouldn’t call Sullivan a “conservative journalist.” But I guess, to the Brits, he qualifies.
If the two major parties of the UK actually represent ideological right and left–I don’t know of my knowledge how well they do, as opposed to grift–then voters don’t have other choices, given their strong party system, of disciplining one team without throwing an election to the other.
Conservatives always used to call this the “Democratic plantation” when talking about the black vote: the Dems say “whaddya gonna do vote Republican”? If British voters never vote Labor because Labor is worse, then they are on the Tory plantation and the Tories can get as bad as they like provided they stay slightly less bad than Labor.
The UK is not stuck with their Parliament for a fixed term, anyway: snap elections can get called at any time which can change things up and throw one majority out. In the US we’re stuck with every two years for the House and 1/3 of the Senate, and the House and Senate don’t choose the President anyway.
But I think the average UK voter probably prefers things farther to the Left than we would here in the US, if we were up to us, which it increasingly isn’t. “Left” and “Labor” and “Socialism” are just not as pejorative over there…
Americans do have other strategies available because our party system doesn’t work the way theirs does: the two parties are legally entrenched but there’s more bottom-up selection of candidates. It is very much in the interest of our two parties to claim that you have no choice but to stick with the party’s candidates unless you want to make things worse. Of course, they WOULD say that. But we are able to change the compositions of our parties from the bottom up, though it’s very hard work and sometimes you lose a seat here and there.
Labour are leftists, but I don’t know what ideology drives the Tories these days.
What has happened is that the Conservative leadership has finally convinced their base that they will NEVER follow policies the base wants. So the only possible solution is to replace them. And that will take a total wipeout at the polls. There is a split on the British right over whether the Tories are still worth taking over, or whether a whole new party is needed. But in any case, the existing leadership has to go.
Note that they don’t have primaries as we do.
Highly recommended British conservative blog: Samizdata: “A blog for people with a critically rational individualist perspective”
https://www.samizdata.net/
“I’ll show them! I’ll vote for something far worse!”
As an alternative, they can “show them” nothing and vote for same-old same-old. Some will, but the choice is unappetizing to say the least.
Why do I read “Keir Starmer” and hear an echo back “Der Sturmer“?
What Eeyore said.
The Tories are utterly and completely worthless. Boris Johnson showed some promise and potential but was narcissistic and let his personal life overwhelm his prime ministership. Since then, it’s been an utter clown show. Liz Truss…PM for about half a second who imploded on take off; and Sunak, who appeals to no one and inspires even fewer.
Were I a British citizen, I’d likely vote Reform UK. But in any case, the Tories have richly earned a good drubbing. Of course, Labour is vile; it’s as far away from Tony Blair’s party as the Democrats are from Bill Clinton’s. The only positive about Labour is that tinpot Marxist, Anti-Semite Corbyn is long gone. Starmer is a vast improvement.
But in any case, it doesn’t seem as though British voters are terribly excited about Labour; they just want to punish the Tories. Alas, that’s understandable
The Tory party policies have been useless since the start of Covid. And they’ve shown no indication they’ll get any better.
A Republican Minnesota legislator, Walter Hudson, has talked about what a single-vote majority means now if it’s a Democrat majority. Last year the Dems pissed away a huge surplus and raised taxes, and this year they shoved through a 1400 page omnibus bill that may not pass constitutional muster–but who knows, since governors appoint justices, and the Republicans have only held the governorship for 8 of the last 28 years.
According to Hudson, the legislature Democrats are utterly controlled by the far left forces. Moderates, including those who won seats by a few hundred votes, are shut out entirely, told to vote the line or be destroyed by the party aparatchiks. The far left hold no positions of power but it is as if they hold guns to heads of those who do.
A Democrat state senator was caught breaking into the house of her mother in law. As that single seat majority is in the state senate, Democrats couldn’t lose her vote and hold power. So they blocked all attempts to discipline her until after the session ended, and then announced piously that she should resign.
Should the Republicans win majorities in the fall, the Democrats know that all their victories are safe, since the governor will veto any attempts to roll them back.