Important and good one Nick. Its odd as any Barrister knows to have to build your case, esp expert vitnesses and persuade the jurry. He should be quite good at this
That’s not the same as understanding power though is it?
There’s a Keating quote I think about a lot (slightly paraphrased) “politics is a vocation, its its own thing with its own specific skills, so every few years some high flyer from banking or business would blow in thinking they could teach us something, but they never lasted long”
That is my increasing worry with Starmer, I totally agreed with the small target strategy in opposition but now he’s in government does he understand Power? I guess we’ll find out
Way back in 1964 when I was just 14 years old I wrote an essay at school decrying means testing as being unfair and always creating a cliff age. Reversing the recent NI tax cut would give Reeves the 22 billion in one fell sweep. More it would give her that every year. Tax is the only other fair way to deal with this. Tax wealthy pensioners more but do not take from the many vulnerable pensioners who may be just a few pounds a week over the ability to get Pension Credit.
Reeves promised not to increase taxes, including NI. I accept that she could have failed to mention NI but she didn’t.
I have found myself that getting other people to agree to something in the future is wasted energy. They agree but when the time comes they disagree. I have wasted more energy on this sort of thing than when I proposed changes that would take place immediately. There is a saying about “things that come out of the woodwork “ for opposition for the sake of opposition. I support Reeve’s and Starmer on their determination to get things done and hope they prove more successful than Blair and Brown with their rival armies of supporters were.
Excellent piece - as one of the many tactical voters but in principle a supporter of this government, Starmer needs to sharpen his political instincts and presentational skills. Your point about Resolution Foundation and IFS is well made, properly independent think tanks unlike some that the last government seemed to have on hand.
I feel like Keir Starmer is not comfortable with selling himself or his policies. Then again, I feel over the last five years at least there have been endless balanced debates on tv. So you could get somone argueing a perfectly valid point then on the other side a grifter like Farage. Often this gives the grifters false legitimacy and given how many times he was invited on an advantage. Some like GB News are blatant propaganda channels. Loads of right wing Hscks given platforms whose goal seems to be to make us doubt the evidence of our own eyes and ears. Who’d want to engage with the media today. How is KS supposed to navigate that? He’s a lawyer. He’s basically decent and he’s not great at selling himself but my God I don’t envy him trying to do politics today. I feel if he puts a foot wrong he’ll be pounced on. So I personally would give him a lot of rope because it will be a cold day in hell before I’d vote Tory after the last five years. I agree with you on the Winter Fuel Allowance. The problem with means testing it does mean people fall through the cracks. But the smoking? Well both my parents died of smoking related lung cancer so I guess I’m biased in favour of banning it. My sibling and I smoked passively for years. That was harmful. As for trust? Well I definitely don’t trust right wing politicians. I trust Libs and Labour more. But as far as I’m concerned trust in the mainstream media is severely lacking too. They contributed to the mess the country is in, in a big way. I know because now I pay for individual journalists as well as Byline Times as most newspapers today aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.
Unusually for a barrister, Starmer doesn't seem to be a good communicator or even enjoy communicating.
Compare him to his fellow barrister Tony Blair.
After Labour's honeymoon was interrupted by the riots, he should be restarting it. He needs without delay all the public support he can garner - because heaven knows he will find that difficult to do once the Government's real problems start.
And it isn't done by being cold and distant and earning the nickname Keir Stalin. Nor by harsh, poorly drafted policies like the end of the winter fuel allowance.
In the UK, governments have the amazing luxury of 5 year terms. This obsession with reelection from Day 1 does my head in
In 5 years LBJ pushed through the Great Society and Civil Rights and still had time for Vietnam
In 5 years as PM Keating (after transforming the economy in the previous 8 as Treasurer) created APEC, basically eliminated Tariff barriers, created the competition policy that survives today, increased and locked in Superannuation, signed the Native Title Act, reoriented Australia’s foreign policy you the pacific and put the Republic on the agenda (and I could bore you with a lot more)
You can not just change a country but lock in the changes in 5 years but only if you don’t waste a day, hell the public might even reward you for it but only if you do it and actually burn up the road not if you govern in a defensive crouch that might make sense in opposition but doesn’t work in power (and that’s the key thing, say what you want about LBJ and Keating, they both thought a lot about and truly understood power, does Starmer?)
As a lifelong centre-lefty I’ve always struggled to understand my sides aversion to means testing when we are so in favour of progressive taxation. Fundamentally I just don’t see the real difference between increasing taxes as you go up the income ladder and reducing benefits as you go up the income/wealth ladder
With Health I get that has to be universal but with so many other benefits I really don’t get it (I get it politically as in universal benefits are more popular, just not ideologically, as in I’m often the only Labor person in a conversation defending the principle of Means Testing) but maybe someone can explain what I’m missing
Important and good one Nick. Its odd as any Barrister knows to have to build your case, esp expert vitnesses and persuade the jurry. He should be quite good at this
That’s not the same as understanding power though is it?
There’s a Keating quote I think about a lot (slightly paraphrased) “politics is a vocation, its its own thing with its own specific skills, so every few years some high flyer from banking or business would blow in thinking they could teach us something, but they never lasted long”
That is my increasing worry with Starmer, I totally agreed with the small target strategy in opposition but now he’s in government does he understand Power? I guess we’ll find out
I think Take what you know and adjust it He is smart enough what I gather
Way back in 1964 when I was just 14 years old I wrote an essay at school decrying means testing as being unfair and always creating a cliff age. Reversing the recent NI tax cut would give Reeves the 22 billion in one fell sweep. More it would give her that every year. Tax is the only other fair way to deal with this. Tax wealthy pensioners more but do not take from the many vulnerable pensioners who may be just a few pounds a week over the ability to get Pension Credit.
Reeves promised not to increase taxes, including NI. I accept that she could have failed to mention NI but she didn’t.
I have found myself that getting other people to agree to something in the future is wasted energy. They agree but when the time comes they disagree. I have wasted more energy on this sort of thing than when I proposed changes that would take place immediately. There is a saying about “things that come out of the woodwork “ for opposition for the sake of opposition. I support Reeve’s and Starmer on their determination to get things done and hope they prove more successful than Blair and Brown with their rival armies of supporters were.
No gunshots have yet been heard between 10 and 11 Downing Street.
Excellent piece - as one of the many tactical voters but in principle a supporter of this government, Starmer needs to sharpen his political instincts and presentational skills. Your point about Resolution Foundation and IFS is well made, properly independent think tanks unlike some that the last government seemed to have on hand.
I feel like Keir Starmer is not comfortable with selling himself or his policies. Then again, I feel over the last five years at least there have been endless balanced debates on tv. So you could get somone argueing a perfectly valid point then on the other side a grifter like Farage. Often this gives the grifters false legitimacy and given how many times he was invited on an advantage. Some like GB News are blatant propaganda channels. Loads of right wing Hscks given platforms whose goal seems to be to make us doubt the evidence of our own eyes and ears. Who’d want to engage with the media today. How is KS supposed to navigate that? He’s a lawyer. He’s basically decent and he’s not great at selling himself but my God I don’t envy him trying to do politics today. I feel if he puts a foot wrong he’ll be pounced on. So I personally would give him a lot of rope because it will be a cold day in hell before I’d vote Tory after the last five years. I agree with you on the Winter Fuel Allowance. The problem with means testing it does mean people fall through the cracks. But the smoking? Well both my parents died of smoking related lung cancer so I guess I’m biased in favour of banning it. My sibling and I smoked passively for years. That was harmful. As for trust? Well I definitely don’t trust right wing politicians. I trust Libs and Labour more. But as far as I’m concerned trust in the mainstream media is severely lacking too. They contributed to the mess the country is in, in a big way. I know because now I pay for individual journalists as well as Byline Times as most newspapers today aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.
Unusually for a barrister, Starmer doesn't seem to be a good communicator or even enjoy communicating.
Compare him to his fellow barrister Tony Blair.
After Labour's honeymoon was interrupted by the riots, he should be restarting it. He needs without delay all the public support he can garner - because heaven knows he will find that difficult to do once the Government's real problems start.
And it isn't done by being cold and distant and earning the nickname Keir Stalin. Nor by harsh, poorly drafted policies like the end of the winter fuel allowance.
In the UK, governments have the amazing luxury of 5 year terms. This obsession with reelection from Day 1 does my head in
In 5 years LBJ pushed through the Great Society and Civil Rights and still had time for Vietnam
In 5 years as PM Keating (after transforming the economy in the previous 8 as Treasurer) created APEC, basically eliminated Tariff barriers, created the competition policy that survives today, increased and locked in Superannuation, signed the Native Title Act, reoriented Australia’s foreign policy you the pacific and put the Republic on the agenda (and I could bore you with a lot more)
You can not just change a country but lock in the changes in 5 years but only if you don’t waste a day, hell the public might even reward you for it but only if you do it and actually burn up the road not if you govern in a defensive crouch that might make sense in opposition but doesn’t work in power (and that’s the key thing, say what you want about LBJ and Keating, they both thought a lot about and truly understood power, does Starmer?)
As a lifelong centre-lefty I’ve always struggled to understand my sides aversion to means testing when we are so in favour of progressive taxation. Fundamentally I just don’t see the real difference between increasing taxes as you go up the income ladder and reducing benefits as you go up the income/wealth ladder
With Health I get that has to be universal but with so many other benefits I really don’t get it (I get it politically as in universal benefits are more popular, just not ideologically, as in I’m often the only Labor person in a conversation defending the principle of Means Testing) but maybe someone can explain what I’m missing
Very good. They need to explain more. Reeves needs to abandon the Philip Snowdon “iron chancellor “ act and discover Keynes and public investment