Across the pond

by liberal japonicus

While our UKian contingent is not as large as one might hope, I always appreciate their insight to things British. So what to make of this?

Rupert Murdoch was throwing a midsummer party at Spencer House, the palatial residence in St James’s, London, owned by Earl Spencer. Seated on a sofa in the middle of the main room, the 92-year-old media magnate was holding court with carefully chosen individuals of influence – five minutes at a time, strictly one to one. Cabinet ministers, MPs, media executives and others among the great and the good sipped Pol Roger champagne and admired the extravagant floral arrangements, wondering who would be next.

As the numbers swelled, one senior News Corp journalist was chatting away to former prime minister Liz Truss when he had to break off suddenly. His duty was to meet a special guest and bring him to Murdoch. A minute or so later, in swept Keir Starmer in an open-necked black shirt, ready for his audience with the most powerful media figure in the world.

The article, and also this one about Labour's "5 missions" are interesting reads, and I'm wondering what folks think about what is going on. Some questions I have

-Corbyn's villification, deserved or not?

-Separate from that, was/is it required in order to have Labour move ahead

-Kier Starmer, yay or nay?

-predictions?

Comments

[Pro Bono]

The Labour Party is repeating what worked for it in the runup to the 1997 general election, including trying to get Murdoch somewhat onside.

It's hard to see how they can lose the next general election when they're trying so hard to win it and the Tories have done so much to help them.

The question is, what can they do in government? Blair brought in liberal social policies and a minimum wage while Brown ran a budget surplus in the early years. It's sensible now for Starmer to promise fiscal responsibility, but there's a dearth of populist measures available. The five missions are good, but they're mostly aspirational rather than things he can legislate for.

This is not going to be radical government. But competence and honesty will go a long way. That and a reasonably healthy economy could make for a long period in office.

Jeremy Corbyn? Not competent to be prime minister. Which doesn't distinguish him from at least two recent prime ministers.

[wj]

This is not going to be radical government. But competence and honesty will go a long way. That and a reasonably healthy economy could make for a long period in office.

That was pretty much my take in the run-up to the 2020 election on this side of the pond. Competence and honesty came to pass. But the government, an incredibly fragile majority in the Congress (especially the Senate) notwithstanding, managed to be pretty radical over the first two years.

Which is a roundabout way of saying that Labour may surprise you.

[novakant]

Jeremy Corbyn? Not competent to be prime minister.

We will never know, but his policies were actually very popular (when people were asked to decide on the merits alone) - and he inspired many young people.

Starmer's rightward lurch and constant U-turns, on the other hand, are not exactly inspiring stuff, to put it mildly.

[CaseyL]

We will never know, but his policies were actually very popular (when people were asked to decide on the merits alone) - and he inspired many young people.

My impression of Corbyn is that he really is a Uk version of Bernie Sanders: terrific attitudes on most issues, horrible attitudes on others, and an off-putting personality that meant no one wanted to work with him.

I don't care how high-minded you are, if you can't actually get anything done, you're not much use as a politician.

[liberal japonicus]

My impression of Corbyn is that he really is a Uk version of Bernie Sanders

The question I always have to ask is how much of that is him and how much of that is the reporting about him. The fact that Keir (and Blair before him) needs to go to Murdoch makes me wonder. It's an answer I wish I knew but realize I probably never will.

[Pro Bono]

Corbyn as Labour Party leader alienated almost the whole body of MPs - he couldn't fill his shadow cabinet, and lost a motion of no confidence by 172 votes to 40. He had been an MP for 32 years before he was elected leader: in that time he was never appointed to any ministerial or shadow ministerial position. He never had a paid job before that, outside of some trade union work. He dropped out of his polytechnic (now called university) course. He all but failed his school exams.

If you want specific criticisms, I made some on here back when it mattered.

Corbyn remains popular on the radical left - he speaks well on protest marches. That's outside Starmer's skill set.

[Girl from the North Country]

Corbyn was unintelligent, inflexible, and self-righteous. And unelectable: that was clear even before the rightwing press went for him. Margaret Beckett, the Labour MP who proposed him for the shortlist, was open about the fact she did it in order to broaden the policy debate - she was (understandably) horrified when he was elected, she knew he was unelectable.

On Keir Starmer kissing Murdoch's ring, I regret that it is necessary, but it is. Blair had to do it too, and the Blair/Brown administration accomplished much that was good and worthwhile, despite the huge and terrible misstep of the Iraq war. But to do anything, you have first to be elected. Getting the Tories out is urgent, and Keir is intelligent, competent and decent. Lefties understandably think he is too centrist, but I repeat: to achieve anything, you have to be elected. The alternative is more damaging misrule by the Tories.

[bobbyp]

On Keir Starmer kissing Murdoch's ring, I regret that it is necessary, but it is.

Corbyn criticisms notwithstanding (been hashed out here before), I disagree. It is not necessary. The incredible misrule by the Tories has put them in a box. This is an opening to go for the jugular.

The hill to die on for Labour should move unashamedly to the Left....you don't get many chances like these.

Best of luck, Keir Starmer.

[nous]

The hill to die on for Labour should move unashamedly to the Left....you don't get many chances like these.

I understand their caution, though. They are going to get nibbled down from the left by the Greens on their left flank (already happening a bit), and by the Lib Dems on their right flank (who have repented their dalliance with the Tories and are now looking to hoover up some of the disaffected that Starmer's been trying to woo with his centrist pitches).

Unlike the Dems in the US, if Starmer cheats too far either way, he runs the risk of tipping the cup and spilling out support to another party. Here you just risk suppressing turnout, and that's not as harmful when the GOP itself has a turnout problem for all but the horrible.

[novakant]

Here's a list of Labour U-turns made under Starmer:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/04/u-turns-labour-keir-starmer-tuition-fees-income-tax

And there's more - particularly the position on Brexit has shifted so many times now, it's completely ridiculous ("Make Brexit Work" - yeah, right)

No wonder 50% of voters don't know what Labour stands for.

Starmer wants to win over disenchanted Tories, is terrified of the tabloids and the former red wall - hence the authoritarian rhetoric and party purges - and thinks it's cool to throw young people under bus, because they don't vote any way.

And yet, his favourability ratings hover at the same level as Sunak's and he was never able to really capitalize on Tory weakness during Johnson.

So yes, Labour might win (though that's not a given) but that's despite rather than because of the current leadership. I would suggest a bolder, more consistent approach, if nothing else, it's better marketing.

[novakant]

Unlike the Dems in the US, if Starmer cheats too far either way, he runs the risk of tipping the cup and spilling out support to another party.

Indeed.

Ultimately, the UK needs electoral reform, i.e. prportional representation, but alas, the Labour leadership is against it.

[Nigel]

Corbin ? Pffft.
Starmer - better than another five years of the Tories.
Murdoch ? Absolutely no reason to give him time if day, and good ones not to.

Labour will win the next election, likely with a large majority. As novakant says, we should have PR. We won't get it.

[Nigel]

The only interesting policy Labour have is on housing - and involves a significant transfer of power back to local government.
If they deliver on it, it might even make a difference.

[Pro Bono]

the UK needs electoral reform, i.e. proportional representation, but alas, the Labour leadership is against it

Proportional representation: what does that mean? Very few of its proponents take the term literally. I voted against the AV method offered in the 2011 referendum, but would have voted for the STV method in the LibDems' manifesto.

[Tom H.]

Nigel at 0831:

> The only interesting policy Labour have is on housing - and involves a significant transfer of power back to local government. If they deliver on it, it might even make a difference.

My impression is that homebuilding over here is mostly captured by the NIMBYs? Judging by articles like https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jan/15/new-homes-at-risk-as-english-local-authorities-cut-housebuilding-plans, as soon as the central government removed the mandate, the local authorities dropped their plans.

We just moved into our house in London zone 3 after half-a-dozen years of renting, so the political questions are pretty new to us. We're not in a conservation area but the limits on remodeling still come across as pretty severe, and if we understand correctly the council explicitly forbids people in our area from subdividing family houses into houses-in-multiple-occupation or flats.

[Girl from the North Country]

FWIW on the Murdoch question, I do agree that it shouldn't be necessary to kiss the ring, and maybe it is less necessary than it used to be because of his age and the way that the electorate (presumably) now consumes news, but the Brexit referendum, among other populist phenomena, makes me sure that Labour cannot rely on a victory, whatever the polls say. And to the extent that a sizeable proportion of the electorate may still for example read the Sun, I am sure that Labour must take every precaution to ensure that public opinion does not swing back Torywards. Partygate damaged BoJo and the Tories, and the cost of living crisis and strikes are continuing the job, but voters are still extremely exercised about illegal immigration, the Tories are milking it for all they can, Starmer is right to leave no stone unturned.

[Nigel]

The housing policy is more significant than that, Tom.
The relevant article is here:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/29/labour-allow-local-authorities-buy-land-cheaply-for-development
… sources say the party would pass a law soon after entering government to allow local development authorities to buy up land under compulsory purchase orders without factoring in the hope value.

Hope value is the price premium attached to land on which planning permission has either been granted or on which developers hope it will be granted. An analysis by the Centre for Progressive Policy in 2018 found that planning permission inflated the price of agricultural land by 275 times, pushing it up from £22,520 per hectare to £6.2m per hectare...

This would represent both a very large transfer of power from central to local government, and also might provide the wherewithal to finance large scale development without requiring much government money.

Granted that would be at the cost of lost windfall profits to those owning agricultural land so acquired, but that seems a price eminently worth paying.

[Nigel]

Note that prior to the Thatcher governments of the 1980s, local authorities owned substantial numbers of homes, let to ‘council tenants’.

Legislation by those governments provided those tenants with a right to buy the properties they rented, usually at a significant discount to market value.
The policy was both very popular, and IMO a good one.

Or would have been, but for a fatal flaw.
The sales (over the next two to three decades), provided very large revenues to government, which proved a temptation Thatcher , and her successors from both left and right, were unable to resist.

Rather than allowing local government to retain the proceeds, they were taken by central government. And the proportion (around a quarter) remitted back to local government, was not allowed to be reinvested in new housing stock.

That history, in my view, is the single biggest contributor to the current problems in the U.K. housing market - and a significant part of the increasing centralisation of government in the U.K. since the 1970s.