Keir Starmer is not a politician by training or inclination. He was drafted into civilian office late in life and immediately lowered into a stately place on the front benches.
In this way, Starmer is part of a long tradition. Political systems in trouble often lose faith in their native class of civilian leaders, and turn instead to a distinguished outsider who seems to stand above the factions.
These people are not ‘political’ – politics has failed. These are figures of unity, and of command. The senile Field Marshal MacMahon; the senile Field Marshal Hindenburg; the policeman Starmer; the police spy Sue Gray – harder, simpler people for a harder, simpler rule.
But there is a reason why most governing classes try to avoid the open rule of its bureaucrats, spies and major generals. Social orders need to maintain a mythology of some kind – that power does not simply flow out the barrel of a gun. Whatever else the next few years may hold, it does not ultimately bode well for Blairite society that it must now have recourse to people like Starmer.
Much has been said about Keir Starmer’s ‘Pabloism’, and of his youthful sojourn in a work camp behind the Iron Curtain. All valid things to raise. What should be remembered, though, is that this general tendency – the collected fissile elements of Marxism Today – has now been in power for over a quarter century and is showing its age. Whatever radical or subversive edge it may have had is many years gone. It is also, in its way, unduly flattering. New Labour was always proudly philistine. The sneering conformism, the monomaniacal obsession with football. This was never a ploy to distract from more chic ideas, as some have said. The two were always one and the same. ‘Pabloism’ in practice from 1997 simply meant the kind of chivvying ITV morning show sensibility that has come to define the era; that eccentricity is suspect, that everyone has to cheer for England, and that Diana Spencer was the People’s Princess.
Forget class, certainly. Forget, even, the Authoritarian Personality, or “all that is solid melts into air”. What we’re faced with in 2024 is a stodgy public moralism that owes much more to Ant & Dec than to Michel Pablo. And more than anything else, it’s a public doctrine that was put in genuine danger from 2016-20, placing it under a psychological state of siege from which it has yet to emerge, and which Starmer’s victory will do nothing to allay.
Starmer the man is the most apt symbol of this new, baroque self-seriousness. This is a person who really does think that a studio audience would laugh at him because his father was a toolmaker. He speaks to an established order that has, in its paranoia, lost whatever capacity for subtlety or irony it may have once possessed. There is instead a deathly earnestness, and a fear for the future. Shadows move on the walls – divisive ones. Look at the front cover of Starmer’s manifesto. He is flinty-eyed; wearisomely resolute. The whole picture is tinted grey. Even Theresa May in her full pomp would have probably baulked at this. Keir Starmer is a dark and brooding man for a dark and brooding age.
Starmer and the class he represents believe that time is running out for them. The Financial Times speaks of Starmerism as a last chance saloon for the Third Way. If Mr. Trump re-enters the Oval Office, and if current political trends in continental Europe persist, then the Starmer ministry will soon be the last government of its kind in the Western world.
It will retain its distinct character, though. New Labour’s overriding belief was a horror of centralised power in London (let it never be said that this project was in any way ‘Metropolitan’), and the idea that there are natural laws, or human rights, that majorities cannot abridge. With Brexit, these ideas took on a new urgency. Britain’s EU exit was, among other things, a reassertion of popular sovereignty and executive powers. And so, in 2024, the quangos, devolution, and the rule of the courts are now treated as the best way to prevent anything like Brexit ever happening again. It’s a simple, despairing idea. No one can be trusted to use power, and so the sceptre of state must now be smashed once and for all lest anyone try to pick it up. Absolutely no one will be responsible for anything under such a system; the only sovereign power will be codes of ethics and values, enforced by the courts.
This is the meaning of Starmerism: a frantic charge for the guns to destroy the unitary parliamentary state before any of its rivals can wrest control of it. In the man itself it will find a suitable commanding officer. Sir Keir has no settled views on economic or foreign affairs. He is essentially apolitical; essentially philistine. His only political belief is that politics should stop existing. Like many politicians drawn from the security forces, he is old and his career is behind him; he wants, essentially, to render this last service to the nation and then retire.
There is nothing mysterious or evasive about Starmerism at all. It has always been very open about its basic programme: to reduce Parliament and Downing Street to constitutional ciphers and end majority rule.
This is the hard point around which the party’s entire manifesto revolves. For all the talk of growth, the economy is here completely suborned to the bigger constitutional battle. The economic idea of Starmerism is that no politician should be permitted to take economic decisions. All “fiscal events” are to be submitted to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) for its approval, which will create an effective veto. Economic advisory bodies are split, merged, and closed all the time, but such is the hostility to any kind of executive power that new institutions like the ‘Industrial Strategy Council’ are to be put on an actual statutory footing.
The Lascalles Principles, previously obscure, have now been invoked at least twice in the last Parliament to prevent a dissolution; they will no doubt now become an accepted constitutional fact, and will stop any future prime minister from calling an election on a controversial economic measure, for fear of giving the markets a fright. Ensuring good fiscal decisions by making bad ones illegal – such is the accumulated financial wizardry of Team Starmer.
Immigration and energy will follow a similar course. Starmer has pledged to “strengthen” the Migration Advisory Council (MAC). Given how loathe Rishi Sunak has been to ignore its recommendations, we can only assume that a beefed-up version of the MAC will have almost complete discretion over Britain’s immigration policy. Great British Energy, like NHS England (created by the Coalition’s health reforms), will simply take over this area of policy. It will be able to ignore direct orders from ministers, just as NHS England ignored Brandon Lewis’s order to stop hiring DEI consultants.
The military is also be put at the disposal of international law, rather than the civilian government. It is yet unclear what shape the ‘Prevention of Military Intervention Act’ will take, but it will almost certainly require the executive to make a ‘lawful case’ for any military action it undertakes. Similarly, the Legacy Act which protects Northern Ireland veterans from prosecution is to be repealed.
Starmerism will massively expand the scope of rights, chipping away at even the theoretical basis for opposition. The planned Race Equality Act will prioritise minorities over white Britons in the awarding of government contracts. The new Government also plans to activate the ‘socio-economic duty’ in the Equality Act, meaning that all public bodies (including government departments) will have a legal obligation to reduce socio-economic inequality. This will open any kind of economically liberal agenda up to legal challenge, or at least to legal resistance from the civil service. That this made it into the manifesto also hints that the ‘Social Rights’ detailed in Gordon Brown’s A New Britain may yet resurface: these would include full access to NHS services – and welfare payments – to newly-arrived migrants.
And Starmerism will finally banish the spectre of Civil Service reform, so long mooted. Instead, the Civil Service will carry out its own reform of the executive – or, as Sue Gray put it, moulding Downing Street “into [Whitehall’s] way of working”.
Starmer will adopt the recommendations of the Institute for Government’s recent Power with Purpose report. These include finally abandoning the conceit that ministers give orders to civil servants, replacing it with a system of formal bartering between Whitehall and the executive.
This will, for one, mean the creation of a Department of the Civil Service: Whitehall will at last acquire a constitutional existence, and will no longer simply be a set of employees that the state happens to have hired. Further, any incoming government will have to agree on a set of “Priorities for Government” with a panel comprised of civil servants, the departmental secretaries, and the Head of the Civil Service. However, the Head of the Department of the Civil Service will be empowered to “ensure that policies and budgets take delivery considerations into account” – in other words, the formal right to torpedo the policies of the elected government on entirely subjective grounds of ‘workability’. (See this article for a much more detailed description of the Institute of Government’s proposals)
Parliament and ministers will be policed by a new overarching Ethics and Integrity Commission with its own independent chair; its brief will, in all likelihood, be to enforce the vague and genuinely risible Nolan Principles. As they have done for the previous three years, these processes will simply be used as a way to wear down, harry and expel political opponents. In the face of constant frivolous investigations, parliamentary privilege will cease to exist in any meaningful form, as will effective cabinet government. Tellingly, the only department that will not have a corresponding select committee to monitor its “standards and ethics” will be the new Department of the Civil Service.
On the Union, Starmer plans to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. That the SNP has since fallen into complete confusion, that the almost total defeat of Scottish nationalism has never required any “reimagining of Britishness” or federal reorganisation, leaves him cold. His Government plans to strengthen the Sewel Convention, meaning that Westminster will be barred from striking down legislation on devolved matters, as Rishi Sunak did in January 2023. Scottish and Welsh nationalism has always relied on the implicit patronage of Westminster, and as this resumes their fortunes will revive.
Elsewise, the plan is for more devolution all around, crowned with (eventually) a chamber of the Nations and Regions to replace the House of Lords. The devolved administrations and metro mayoralties contain what really are some of the most malign figures that 21st Century Britain has to offer. Having no tradition of regional or municipal autonomy, those who volunteer to fill out their ranks are mainly those who wish to torment or rob their fellow creatures: the ultimate big fish in small ponds.
Mark Drakeford thought seriously about banning the sale of tea and coffee to teenagers. The City of Liverpool Mayoralty has collapsed after a series of scandals. Tower Hamlets has, mysteriously, lent £87 million to its sister councils. Thurrock Council is £655 million in the hole to the solar panel impresario Liam Kavanagh. The money intrigues of Nicola Sturgeon and Vaughan Gething are well known. Britain’s rulers are absolutely resolute in their efforts to empower these people further, seeing in this collection of freaks, thieves and informants the most effective way to break up any sense of a unitary body politic in Britain.
At a higher level, the new ministry will establish a Council of the Nations and Regions in which the devolved governments and mayors are to be consulted on all matters of policy. This Council – this Round Table of Insolvents – is the true ‘Starmer Class’, a visible sign of a governing establishment that must move downmarket to maintain itself in power, just as Starmer and Gray have been fetched from the back office to effect a kind of rough restoration of order.
With Starmerism, a certain kind of Westminster world will also come to an end: the world of tabloid mischief, the Red Lion, and backstairs intrigue. Fleet Street, especially its centre-right organs, has long fancied itself as an impish foe of the powerful. This is an important part of British political mythology; the Lobby, as we all know, “holds power to account”.
But it is totally unprepared, I think, for the regime that is about to enter Downing Street. It will likely pick up the thread of the Leveson press regulations. The Nolan Principles will do it for the milieu of the late-night Commons vote and The Strangers’ Bar. Stella Creasey will be the symbol of the world of Westminster under Starmer, not Matt Chorley or Chris ‘Chopper’ Hope. Previous governments suffered the press’s antics. This one will accuse it of disinformation, and it will do so with the full support of people like Alastair Campbell and Adam Boulton.
One canary in the coal mine will be GB News, which will come under relentless attack from an empowered Ofcom. Another is the likely closure of the Sun, which will shortly have to make a big cash settlement for besmirching the good name of Huw Edwards, another plodding enforcer in the Starmer vein. (This will be the culmination of a decades-long effort. Future historians will find it strange that Britain’s governing class could not even suffer the existence of a proletarian rag.)
Starmer’s programme will not formally abolish the powers of parliament. So long as it remains sovereign, everything is ultimately recoverable. What it will do, however, is put even any reforming government in a quasi-revolutionary position. Upon coming to power, a Right-wing government would face an immediate constitutional crisis in which actual authority was contested and civil servants would be unsure who to obey. Its legislative programme would be declared substantially illegal, and salvo after salvo of HR and ethics investigations would be launched in its direction. With a strengthened OBR, the new government would struggle even to pass a budget. Politics is impossible under these conditions. It is already largely impossible now. Anyone who would lead an opposition to Starmer must be willing to assert the unqualified power of the crown-in-parliament. There must be no institution that they would be unwilling to dissolve, no person they’d be unwilling to fire. Keir Starmer would make every political conflict a constitutional one, and, eventually, he must be answered in kind.
Stop Press: In his Telegraph column, Charles Moore homes in one one aspect of Starmer’s constitutional proposals: reform of the House of Lords. It’s far from perfect, he says, but much, much better than what Labour wants to replace it with. Well worth reading.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Claiming ulez has any public benefits is on a par with claiming the Holocaust had some plusses for the Jewish community.
Or Nazi’s built some nice roads.
They did. You can still drive on them. I wasn’t keen on pretty much everything else they did.
I was in a discussion about Clean Air Zones the other day, and decided to do a bit of digging. Deaths from Asthma is what is usually quoted as justification, but these total 1,400 a year in the UK, not in the top 10 causes of death, and less than the excess deaths since lockdown by some margin.
Then I thought I’d compare India, you know with thick smog in the cities and wood and dung fires in the villages. Asthma sufferers in the UK 8% of population, India 3% of population. Curious, don’t you think. I mean, ULEZ and CAZ are all about revenue generation, but I’d like to understand why with filthy air, (and I’m old enough to remember filthy air here), India can have just a third of UK cases. Anyone explain it to me..?
Higher jabbed populations in UK?
Adjuvants are suspected to increase incidents of autoimmune disorders.
This data is from 2016, well before jabs. I suppose I’m curious about our modern lifestyle and intolerance of cold atmospheres and bacteria in general (…kills 99.,9% etc). Is anyone doing grown up research about it, I wonder, perhaps with an unpopular answer.?
I think AYM is right. Adjuvants have been used in vaccines since the 1920’s.
And over the last few years many kids have allergies to peanuts for God’s sake
WHY –
https://vaccinationinformationnetwork.com/peanut-allergy-yet-another-vaccine-related-epidemic-2/
Kids had virtually no immune disorders until after the 1980’s – which coincided with – guess what.
Now nearly 50% of kids suffer from –
Asthma.
Eczema.
Autism.
Obesity
And no doubt cancers in later life – if they get there.
WHY. Wild animals do not suffer from these problems, neither do 3rd world countries (although they are catching up).
I would refer people tp “Vaccinepapers.org” – but that page is no longer available.
I wonder why – nothing to do with bigpharma is it.
May they rot in hell.
Which, by all non partisan accounts, have exploded since WWII; now, what could possibly have caused that?
I suspect the differences between UK and India are linked to diagnosis. I have worked with lots of people who claimed to be asthmatic when the reality was they were just unfit. Doctors are happy to write prescriptions and the ‘patients’ are chuffed to bits to be ‘victims.’
‘Where’s mi puffer?’
How many neo asthmatics had their immune system function tested prior to that prescription? I suspect none.
I know I did not; severe allergies that peaked in my mid 30’s (or so I thought) were attributed to some form of asthma by GP and I was prescribed steroids… had all childhood jabs. Circa 2016 developed extremely severe Anaphylaxis….now every day I have to be on red alert.
Still, to my knowledge, immune system never tested….Ig3/Ig4 capacity? GP now very arsey about ANY testing regimes, and will not consider this course of action until some ill health event occurs – their words , not mine.
Having visited Delhi and seen the summary of the causes of air pollution, the primary one was road dust, by a large margin, followed by diesel particulates because of the mass of very old and unmaintained lorries and buses. Just resurfacing Delhi’s (main) roads and replacing these old lorry/bus engines with modern units would provide a massive cut in air pollution. I would also imagine the situation in Delhi is replicated in most major cities.
I know they built nice roads, that is why I made that remark. —–But I am so glad you were not keen on other things they did. ——-ULEZ is more than just a revenue generator though. It is all part of the GREEN war on cars and on the western world in general.
Very tempted to link that sort of comment with “some thing and someone else” but on balance I will stop there…
ULEZ does not save lives –
leaflet to print at home and deliver to neighbours or forward to politicians, media, friends online.
Muslim Khan lying? Wow. Shocker. Particulate pollution is down 98% since the 70s. There isn’t a pollution issue from cars. They emit trace amounts.
Now maybe address the marketing and terror campaign for Rona and the safe and effective mantras which were splashed everywhere (and still are). Oh wait. People who oppose Pharma end up dying. Maybe pass on that one.
I would vote for a chair, a turnip, or a pile of dogshit before I voted for this parasite.
The dirty little secret is that much ulez funding derives from investors in green energy/battery powered vehicles.
Where does Khan invest his own money?
He loves a one way bet…….
As a chemist in a former life, I had to chuckle at the reference to “reducing levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) particles”. I assume it’s just another example of the Telegraph employing technically illiterate interns to comment on scientific matters.
Boris & Khan were both elected on mandates to lower public transport prices or stop them rising. This has caused big problems with the finances, hence the increase in the LEZ to bring in more money.
It has nothing to do with pollution as the cars are not stopped entering but charged to enter.
The other increase in pollution is the slow movement of buses through the City caused by the increase in cycle only lanes, even though buses are the greener solution, as they can transport greater numbers per metre of road space than cycles.
The electoral procedure is also changing in 2024 favouring Khan unless another notable Independent stood on the Left.
Exactly. It was always about money, they just needed a reason for the charges. The fact that if you pay you can enter, even in a smoky fume spouting old banger, completely torpedoes their argument The real problem of pollution is the London Underground.
I despair that Khan could get another term if the electoral procedure changes favour him. He’s ruining the city I was born in and spent a large part of my life in. I haven’t been to London for ages but I remember it with great affection. Getting rid of the Routemaster buses was a major blow.
Why shouldn’t my ex-wife enter London.
Hahahaha! Good one, Roubles
I agree it is very sad and I am fortunate to have wonderful memories of my time in London.
Our world seems to be changing with the young folk no longer having the same need or interest to explore as we had. I do not know why and expect to be shouted down and down ticked for these thoughts.
Good shooting ATR; he did not perform well when he was summoned to a session of ? Westminster Council ? to “discuss” this. The video of the person with the air quality monitor going from road to Underground immediately in the vicinity tells you everything.
How will he be sanctioned; appears to me that the punishment is in inverse proportion; bigger the lie by a person in a position of trust in the tax payer funded public sector the diminution of any sanction shrinks further. Banning from any future public office should be the de minimus punishment to be enhanced the bigger the lie.
Sorry, do you know I thought I was living in the UK for a moment.
Khan lied. Quelle surprise (not).
ULEZ is about control, surveillance, money and forcing poor and marginalised people out of their cars.
Seconded
Passed without a “lobby clearing division”, imho.
Not the first time this man has ‘misled’ in order to impose his own way.
“The Vice-Chancellor of Imperial College, who was at the reins during the Covid modelling scandal and the Ulez data scandal, has been given the biggest pay rise of any V-C in the UK. Her salary ‘bump‘ of £186,000 brings her total remuneration, including salary and benefit, to £714,000.”
Presumably funded by W Gates.
“The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is set to criticise Transport for London (TfL)”. Criticise!! The ASA should fine Kahn in the form of all ULEZ charges to date being returned to the vehicle owners, and all future ones declared null & void by the same token, effectively scrapping the scheme.