Keir Starmer,
the UK Labour party leader, made much of his left wing credibility in his political youth, no
doubt to appeal to the largely left wing membership in his successful campaign
to win the leadership. With some
justification it seems, as he was on the editorial board of Socialist
Alternatives magazine, a small-circulation Trotskyist-linked red/green journal
that billed itself as ‘the human face of the hard left’. He also, as a lawyer,
defended poll tax protesters and the ‘McLibel Two,’ in court cases.
Since Starmer
became leader of the Labour party though, the signals coming out from himself
and shadow Cabinet colleagues is all rather cautious, and definitely ‘centrist’
in nature. Any kind of radical politics have been nowhere to be seen.
He has kicked into the long grass an inconvenient issue, by announcing an investigation into the leaked party report of the sabotaging of Labour’s chances of winning the 2017 General Election, by party officials. It will be chaired by Martin Forde QC, who currently acts as an independent adviser to the Home Office on the government's Windrush compensation scheme, and is seen as a Starmer ally. The pro-Israel lobby inside and outside of the party has been courted too.
Then we come to
Starmer’s response to the toppling and throwing into the harbour of the statue of Victorian era British slave trader, Edward Colston, at the Black Lives Matter
protest in Bristol. Interviewed
on LBC radio about the incident.
He said:
"It shouldn't have been done in that way. Completely wrong to pull a
statue down like that.
"But that
statue should have been taken down a long, long time ago.
"This was
a man who was responsible for 100,000 people being moved from Africa to the
Caribbean as slaves, including women and children, who were branded on their
chests with the name of the company he ran.
"20,000
died on route and they were chucked in the sea.
"He should
not be a statue in Bristol or anywhere else."
Most people
would agree with the second part of this answer, including the Home
Secretary, Priti Patel, who later blamed the long-time Labour run council
for not removing the statue sooner. Her advisers were obviously listening to
the Starmer interview. But what struck me most was, the Janus like attempt to cover off
the criminal activity, but probably of a popular act, and to not be seen to
condone it, but at the same time make an anti-racist statement of solidarity, with
those who suffered and died.
It immediately
brought to mind Tony Blair’s catchy soundbite, ‘tough on crime, tough on the
causes of crime’, from his early years as Shadow Home Secretary and in time
leader and Prime Minister. He was a better communicator than Starmer, who has a
rather slow and dull style, effective though it is, against our blustering
Prime Minister in Parliament. Blair, of course was a member of CND in his
youth, and look where that went?
Starmer’s answer had the same kind of feel about it, trying to appeal to both sides of opinion,
those appalled by what went on in Bristol, and those who broadly supported it. The
old triangulation trick. All in all though, the feeling I get so far from the new regime
in the Labour party, is very much a back to the future, if you get what I mean.
You could say this is clever politics, at a time when the government are trying to paint the opposition as ‘unpatriotic’ whenever the government's handling of the pandemic crisis or anything else is criticised. The Tories have been whipping up nationalistic sentiment over Brexit, and doing the same thing with all other issues it seems. Which is all very well, but where are the principles?
Campaigners in Bristol have been trying the legal route of removing the statue for 30 years, to no avail. No one was hurt, just an odious statue removed. No one listened to the suffragettes until they started breaking windows etc.
Most Labour left
members as far as I can see are staying with the party, although some have
left, waiting to see if the policies change from the last manifesto, and to
what extent. That remains an open question at this stage, but the ‘centrist’
signs elsewhere, do not bode well in my opinion. What will happen to policies
like the ‘green industrial revolution’ promised by the Corbyn led party, for
instance? Will it be watered down to something less radical so as not to scare the horses?
It does look as
though this has been mirrored in the US, with Joe Biden gaining the Democratic
party presidential nomination. Biden won’t have any kind of radical Green New
Deal if he wins the presidency. Bernie Sanders and perhaps Elizabeth Warren
were the only hope of that. Maybe, more radical thinking in the big leftish
parties in the UK and US has had its albeit brief day?
For any kind of
an even small move in the direction of ecosocialism, in the UK and US, it doesn’t
look good. The Green party in England, offering some ecosocialist type polices may win one
or two more seats in Parliament, in a hung Parliament, which is surely the best
Labour can hope for, which could possibly yield some useful environmental and social concessions,
but that is about all I can see.
It could be that action outside of electoral politics will be much more important than what happens in Parliament, once we get through the pandemic. The momentum of the climate strikes and Extinction Rebellion protests has been lost now with the lock-down - it will need to be ramped up again, if we are get any meaningful action on environmental and social justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment