Labour has had its bad moments, devaluation in 1949 under Clement Attlee, devaluation again in 1967 under Harold Wilson, and the International Monetary Fund crisis in 1976 under Jim Callaghan. But all those crises were largely beyond the control of government.
The unfolding war in Iran is a huge external shock, but the crisis that Keir Starmer finds himself in is both greater and more self-inflicted than these three black spots in Labour history. Unlike the earlier prime ministers, Starmer arrived in office with an underpowered cabinet and No 10 and without a plan, most significantly for growing the economy. Starmer and his Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, have failed to generate growth.
Subscribe to the New Statesman today and save 75%
THANK YOU
Content from our partners
Related
Join the debate
Subscribe here to commentHow similar is this to Sunak bringing Cameron in as Foreign Secretary? I think not very, and the New Labour baggage (particularly with post-Mandelson) makes this a ridiculous idea.
What a load of nonsense. “Widely if not universally respected”, give me a break. The world has changed and this obsession with clinging on to out of touch old names will only throttle any chance Britain has at navigating the new order successfully. Thank god this is a bizarre pipe dream and stands no chance of coming to fruition
An attempt to lure Starmer into something so universally unpopular that he’s finally forced out?
I just don’t see this as a workable solution. I don’t see Blair as someone who’s capable of being in a sub-ordinate position. The only government position he’s ever held is that of Prime Minister, and he doesn’t strike me as the kind of person to just accept the judgement of Starmer if they disagree. If Starmer’s problem is authority, then I don’t see a Labour ‘big beast’ stalking around him as a good thing.
Sticking with the Blair era has been this government’s big mistake. Mandelson is a Blair era ghost and politics has changed unrecognisably since they were in office. Starmer needs to appoint someone young to serve as a kind of press secretary, not just rotate round the old guard to try and artificially create a technocratically supreme state.
The one where Blair told Labour’s traditional voters they were toast – his speech at the Labour Party Conference of 2005:
“I hear people say we have to stop and debate globalisation. You might as well debate whether autumn should follow summer…
“The character of this changing world is indifferent to tradition. “Unforgiving of frailty.
“No respecter of past reputations. “It has no custom and practice.
“It is replete with opportunities, but they only go to those swift to adapt, slow to complain, open, willing and able to change.”
That should help?
“Blair would stand up to Trump” Any evidence for this claim? I would suggest there is evidence for the opposite.
There’s about 5% of Brits who would be impressed by this and they are all already supporting Labour.
Would this not be yet another example of Starmer’s failure to understand politics? However much weight and kudos Blair would bring to the job, his brand is toxic with Labour and much of the electorate, and more so as the negative effects of his constitutional changes are increasingly apparent. It also assumes Starmer can and should survive. Repeat changes of PM is best avoided but not if they’re incompetent, and please, let’s not kid ourselves that Major was an effective PM. He forced Maastricht through parliament without building the support needed to last beyond a generation. That’s a political failing in my book.
John Major didn’t make a mistake a month though.
If you say that Major made 3 large errors, Maastricht, the ERM and privatising the railways that wouldn’t be unreasonable.
I am not sure Maastricht was an error either. Lisbon was the error so soon after a very large treaty.
I’m pretty sure Starmer is too thin skinned tp bring back Blair, and it would probably create even more problens with the membership
A big mistake by Starmer was not bringing in Emily Thornberry as Foreign Secretary, a shadow post she had held successfully.
Alternatively, and more plausibly, Starmer could invite Burnham in as his #2 (but definitely not Chancellor) to revive the growth & domestic agenda whilst taking over the foreign affairs & defence portfolios himself. Oh, and sack Reeves- of course!!
Tony has resisted becoming a member of the Lords so that is problem number one. His skills far outpass Starmers so how would the Cabinet react when faced with a successful politician? However, needs must. Starmer is very similar to Brown but without 10 years of successful running the economy. A small thing, I know. Starmer will face a different decision when the results come in this weekend. I know he will blame everyone else, so Rachel will probably be sacked as the sacrificial lamb.