Starmer condemns Reform UK’s ‘racist rhetoric’ – UK politics live | Politics

The leadership crisis that hit Westminster at the start of this week may not have been very good for the governance of the UK, but it has produced some good journalism. The New Statesman and the Spectator this week have both published impressive long reads this week about what has gone wrong for the government. Although not explicitly billed as such, they both read like first drafts of an obituary for Keir Starmer’s premiership.

In his essay in the New Statesman, Tom McTague, the magazine’s editor-in-chief, focuses on the ideas influencing the Starmer project. Here is an extract.

The tragic irony for [Morgan] McSweeney [Starmer’s chief of staff until Sunday] was that Starmer’s 18 months as prime minister have only vindicated Blair’s central analysis of their project. McSweeney and Starmer might have identified what they disliked most about the excesses of New Labour, but they never developed an alternative political economy of their own that might replace it. In place of Blairism there was no theory of political reform or coherent critique of British state failure, no analysis of Britain’s future place in the world or any kind of distinct moral mission. All there was was a promise to “clean things up” as Starmer put it to me. The mission became, in essence, conservative: to protect the settlement erected by Blair and eroded over the 20 years since his departure. Britain could thrive if it could only begin to live within its means, attract more foreign investment, reassure the bond markets and return a sense of “service” to government. After years of chaos, mere stability would be change. And this would be enough.

Where there was distinct radicalism – from McSweeney’s Blue Labour instincts – there was no mandate. McSweeney and Starmer had not fought an ideological battle to bring Blue Labour to government, as Wilson had done for socialist modernisation in the 1960s and Blair for liberal progressivism 30 years later. This was largely because Starmer never really believed in it in the first place and McSweeney, though a reflective thinker, was always more of an operator than political theorist. And so, the pair offered a programme without a programme, a government without ideas or the mandate to enact them.

And in his article for the Spectator, Tim Shipman, the magazine’s political editor, focuses more on Starmer’s weaknesses as a leader. Here is an extract.

Another of those who worked for [Stamer] adds: ‘He’s completely incurious. He’s not interested in policy or politics. He thinks his job is to sit in a room and be serious, be presented with something and say “Yes” or “No” – invariably “Yes” – rather than be persuader–in-chief.’ Even before he fell out with Starmer, Mandelson told friends and colleagues that the Prime Minister had never once asked him ‘What really makes Trump tick?’ or ‘How will he react to this?’.

Others dispute the claim of incuriosity. ‘There are subjects when he drills down and he’s really, really good,’ says another aide. ‘The idea he can’t think politically is also wrong. He will often think ahead.’ But even these loyalists admit Starmer lacks a ‘philosophical worldview’.

Nor does he seem to understand that the Whitehall system requires the PM to be very driven. Downing Street civil servants got used to Rishi Sunak constantly ‘bothering the policy team’. One official says: ‘You would never, ever see Keir charging around a building, asking “What’s going on with that?”’

A cabinet minister says: ‘You never get the 7 a.m. call on a Monday because he’s been thinking about something over the weekend.’ Even Boris Johnson fired off pre-dawn salvos of thoughts at aides and ministers. A former aide agrees: ‘Nobody hears from the guy from Friday lunchtime through till about Monday morning.’

Both articles are very good, and well worth reading in full.