Keir Starmer refused to say that he’s a socialist in an interview with Francis Elliott on Thursday. “What does that mean?” he asked instead. In a way, his inability to do retail politics is almost charming. Having been an MP for a mere six years, he has not yet fully trained himself in the basic arts.
The obvious answer is: “Yes of course.” He has been a member of the Labour Party all his life. In his youth, he was a member of something called the International Revolutionary Marxist Tendency, which produced a magazine called Socialist Alternatives. As a lawyer, he campaigned (unsuccessfully) to change the name of the Haldane Society to the National Society of Socialist Lawyers. As an MP, he served in Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow cabinet.
What a politician would do would be to say “yes of course,” and then go on to define socialism in such wishy-washy terms, involving applehood and people being nice to each other, that nobody could disagree with it. Starmer went on to do precisely that. Having dodged the initial question, he added: “The Labour Party is a party that believes that we get the best from each other when we come together, collectively, and ensure that we give people both opportunity and support as they are needed.”
But he attracted more attention by his refusal to answer the original question than by his attempt to explain himself. By deflecting the question, Starmer implied that there was something embarrassing about being a socialist. He looked as if he lacked the confidence to stand up for what he has always believed. This is all the more curious because Tony Blair used to say he was a socialist, despite being attacked by many in the party in the name of socialism. Indeed, the first sentence of clause IV of the Labour Party constitution, which Blair drafted, declares: “The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party.”
It then goes on with the platitudes “by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone” and “a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few”. But it starts with the S-word, albeit qualified with the word “democratic”, which makes sense for a party in a parliamentary democracy that wants to distinguish its ideology from that of revolutionary socialism.
It makes no sense for Starmer to disown his past. He should call himself a socialist and then define what it means.
Preceded by a leader who wore his socialist credentials on his sleeve led the party to worst defeat in decades. And current leader wants to play down socialism.
Curious.
Because the right wing media, the vast majority in this country, would immediately and disingenuously use it as “evidence” that he’s a communist, because they conflate the two on purpose to perpetuate the Red Scare for profit.
It’s quite simple, not at all “curious”. A journo of all people should know this.
Can anyone really say that they want politicians to have far more control over their lives? We’ve swung way too in favour of the private sector and it needs to be much better regulated. Economic equality should be the number one issue in politics today. The current system is broken, but to lurch towards socialism seems like abandoning ship in the open ocean because the engine doesn’t work.
Having the means of production controlled by “society” seems like a nice idea, but in practice it would mean government control of the economy and much of civic life. At least, that’s what it’s meant in every iteration so far.
Socialism is a wishy-washy concept overall, and open to much interpretation, but if Starmer started promoting it, he would lose the votes of the vast majority of British people. He may (or may not) be a socialist at heart, but he’s wise not to try and enact socialism in the UK. A strong social democratic platform could win a GE, but socialism doesn’t stand a chance.
Starmer is as far from being socialist as you can get without actually being in the Tory cabinet. He is an established member of the authoritarian elite in this country. He doesn’t want to make things “*better*” for everybody – he just want to be in charge for a bit.
Social democracy as carried out by the Nordic countries for example, with their wishy washy forward thinking liberal societies that seem to do so well in practice are a very long way way from what we as a nation would accept in practice.
Look at what happened to Corbyn with his hippy brand of soft socialism. He was crucified by Israel and Moscow via the right wing press, and vilified by the public to the point we ended up with a right wing, pound shop Donald Trump in charge as some kind of consolation prize.
As a nation we don’t want our society to be fair and equal. We want to shit on poor people, immigrants and the disabled because they are inferior to us and they deserve it. It makes our own inadequacies easier to bare, so we keep marching rightward because that’s what we are told to do by our betters – and Starmer knows this.
Well he isn’t one. What’s the controversy here? I can’t really imagine a person who would think “I would like Keir Starmer if he would only label himself as socialist”. Either you like him not being one or you want him to actually do socialist things.
6 comments
Article text:
Keir Starmer refused to say that he’s a socialist in an interview with Francis Elliott on Thursday. “What does that mean?” he asked instead. In a way, his inability to do retail politics is almost charming. Having been an MP for a mere six years, he has not yet fully trained himself in the basic arts.
The obvious answer is: “Yes of course.” He has been a member of the Labour Party all his life. In his youth, he was a member of something called the International Revolutionary Marxist Tendency, which produced a magazine called Socialist Alternatives. As a lawyer, he campaigned (unsuccessfully) to change the name of the Haldane Society to the National Society of Socialist Lawyers. As an MP, he served in Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow cabinet.
What a politician would do would be to say “yes of course,” and then go on to define socialism in such wishy-washy terms, involving applehood and people being nice to each other, that nobody could disagree with it. Starmer went on to do precisely that. Having dodged the initial question, he added: “The Labour Party is a party that believes that we get the best from each other when we come together, collectively, and ensure that we give people both opportunity and support as they are needed.”
But he attracted more attention by his refusal to answer the original question than by his attempt to explain himself. By deflecting the question, Starmer implied that there was something embarrassing about being a socialist. He looked as if he lacked the confidence to stand up for what he has always believed. This is all the more curious because Tony Blair used to say he was a socialist, despite being attacked by many in the party in the name of socialism. Indeed, the first sentence of clause IV of the Labour Party constitution, which Blair drafted, declares: “The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party.”
It then goes on with the platitudes “by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone” and “a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few”. But it starts with the S-word, albeit qualified with the word “democratic”, which makes sense for a party in a parliamentary democracy that wants to distinguish its ideology from that of revolutionary socialism.
It makes no sense for Starmer to disown his past. He should call himself a socialist and then define what it means.
Preceded by a leader who wore his socialist credentials on his sleeve led the party to worst defeat in decades. And current leader wants to play down socialism.
Curious.
Because the right wing media, the vast majority in this country, would immediately and disingenuously use it as “evidence” that he’s a communist, because they conflate the two on purpose to perpetuate the Red Scare for profit.
It’s quite simple, not at all “curious”. A journo of all people should know this.
Can anyone really say that they want politicians to have far more control over their lives? We’ve swung way too in favour of the private sector and it needs to be much better regulated. Economic equality should be the number one issue in politics today. The current system is broken, but to lurch towards socialism seems like abandoning ship in the open ocean because the engine doesn’t work.
Having the means of production controlled by “society” seems like a nice idea, but in practice it would mean government control of the economy and much of civic life. At least, that’s what it’s meant in every iteration so far.
Socialism is a wishy-washy concept overall, and open to much interpretation, but if Starmer started promoting it, he would lose the votes of the vast majority of British people. He may (or may not) be a socialist at heart, but he’s wise not to try and enact socialism in the UK. A strong social democratic platform could win a GE, but socialism doesn’t stand a chance.
Starmer is as far from being socialist as you can get without actually being in the Tory cabinet. He is an established member of the authoritarian elite in this country. He doesn’t want to make things “*better*” for everybody – he just want to be in charge for a bit.
Social democracy as carried out by the Nordic countries for example, with their wishy washy forward thinking liberal societies that seem to do so well in practice are a very long way way from what we as a nation would accept in practice.
Look at what happened to Corbyn with his hippy brand of soft socialism. He was crucified by Israel and Moscow via the right wing press, and vilified by the public to the point we ended up with a right wing, pound shop Donald Trump in charge as some kind of consolation prize.
As a nation we don’t want our society to be fair and equal. We want to shit on poor people, immigrants and the disabled because they are inferior to us and they deserve it. It makes our own inadequacies easier to bare, so we keep marching rightward because that’s what we are told to do by our betters – and Starmer knows this.
Well he isn’t one. What’s the controversy here? I can’t really imagine a person who would think “I would like Keir Starmer if he would only label himself as socialist”. Either you like him not being one or you want him to actually do socialist things.