I, along with many others (over 23,000 specifically), have ended my Labour Party membership, and the reason I did so was due to deep-seated disillusioned with Starmer and his regime.
I think the fundamental thing that must be acknowledged first and foremost, is that the UK is in crisis. I think this is often overlooked by many of us, myself included, who have the privilege of ignorance, or downplayed simply because it’s less blatantly obvious than it previously has been; we haven’t been forced to stay at home with a daily walk as our sole liberty, nor has the entire financial system crashed and burned, as in 2008. But make no mistake; the UK, economically, socially, politically is in crisis.
Research shows Britain to have the highest rate of life dissatisfaction amongst adolescents in Europe, and it has the second-worst mental health ratings globally. Combine this with overwhelmingly long waiting lists leading to an NHS buckling at the seams, it is evident that something needs to change. Particularly, in my view, the state’s economic role needs to expand.
Starmer seemed to me, for one short, hopeful moment, the man for the job. After all, Starmer himself criticised neoliberal economics nine months after his appointment as Labour party leader. He declared that any repetition of the post-2008 austerity measures would be “a complete mistake” only leading to “stripped…public services” and massive increases in inequality, winning the hearts of so many brutally affected by Osbornian austerity. But this speech aged (as Gary Barlow once said to a particularly foul returning X factor contestant) like a bad curry.
The first stone in what has become the austerity avalanche characterising Starmerism, was the PM’s commendation of Thatcher – the torchbearer of neoliberalism – for dragging Britain ‘out of its stupor by setting loose our natural entrepreneurialism’. Now, we face a Chancellor and PM hell-bent upon addressing ‘the £22bn black hole’ in the UK’s public finances, a mission that has- as it always seems to- put a squeeze on the most vulnerable in our society.
The recent £1.5bn cut on winter fuel payments for elderly pensioners, due to harsher eligibility criteria, is just a thread in that tapestry. This marked the first change to the cold weather benefit since it was introduced under Blair in 1997: Starmer has staggeringly re-jigged a policy that even the Conservatives did not dare touch, and two million vulnerable pensioners will suffer because of it.
This proceeded Starmer’s refusal to scrap the Osbornian-era two-child benefit cap which prevents parents from claiming universal credit for more than two children and, were it to be abolished, would lift 250,000 children out of poverty, and lessen the effects of poverty on a further 850,000. In my view, Starmerism is a manifestation of a once-socialist party that is systematically gutting its left-wing roots from the inside out- this was made ever-more evident to me when he suspended seven Labour MPs for opposing this policy-choice.
Infuriatingly, these actions are being justified under the guise of necessity. Lucy Powell’s assertion that the economy could have crashed without the fuel payment cut, as she fearmongered ‘a run on the pound’, feeds into the larger myth that Starmer and his advisors continue to peddle about the urgent need to clear the UK’s debt. Whilst, of course, debt-clearing is important, plentiful research has shown that countries do not need to budget as households, nor can they feasibly externalise costs as household do. Contrary to their contentions, expansionary fiscal policy (aka spending more) can often foster conditions necessary (upskilling, reducing unemployment and stimulating demand) for debt to fall in the long-run.
Dartmouth College economics professor David Blanchflower made this very point: government borrowing and utilisation of Quantitative Easing- as done post-2008- is not the death-knell politicians purport it to be. Far be it for me to side with Jeremy Hunt [EVER], but his denunciation of Starmer’s debt-fixation as just a ‘smoke screen’ for cuts he ‘always intended on making’, rings eerily true to me.
Even if we did buy that some levels of austerity are integral to the resuscitation of the UK’s balance-sheet, Starmer has still derogated from nearly all his left-wing pledges toward taxing the uber-wealthy and big businesses which could actively help his bank-balancing agenda- and even cheekily bring about some vestige of wealth-redistribution. But no, Starmer has ruled out reintroducing the cap on bankers’ bonuses, or instituting a wealth tax. So, whilst British gas sees over 900% profit expansion in one year alone, it is elderly pensioners who are quite literally being left out in the cold.
Of course, I haven’t been wholly disappointed and, yes, we have seen respite from the spending cut and budget-balancing frenzy, for example Angela Rayner’s planning reforms promise to somewhat alleviate the waiting list for social housing, currently standing at 1.3 million. This, of course, is a step in a positive direction. But my point is that Starmerism has shown itself to be (at best) a centre-right regime that has, and continues to, honour the tradition of austerity that has nestled its way into the heart of 10 Downing Street.
“Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer Official Portrait” by UK Prime Minister is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.
Related
Starmer’s lost focus…. and my membership
I, along with many others (over 23,000 specifically), have ended my Labour Party membership, and the reason I did so was due to deep-seated disillusioned with Starmer and his regime.
I think the fundamental thing that must be acknowledged first and foremost, is that the UK is in crisis. I think this is often overlooked by many of us, myself included, who have the privilege of ignorance, or downplayed simply because it’s less blatantly obvious than it previously has been; we haven’t been forced to stay at home with a daily walk as our sole liberty, nor has the entire financial system crashed and burned, as in 2008. But make no mistake; the UK, economically, socially, politically is in crisis.
Research shows Britain to have the highest rate of life dissatisfaction amongst adolescents in Europe, and it has the second-worst mental health ratings globally. Combine this with overwhelmingly long waiting lists leading to an NHS buckling at the seams, it is evident that something needs to change. Particularly, in my view, the state’s economic role needs to expand.
Starmer seemed to me, for one short, hopeful moment, the man for the job. After all, Starmer himself criticised neoliberal economics nine months after his appointment as Labour party leader. He declared that any repetition of the post-2008 austerity measures would be “a complete mistake” only leading to “stripped…public services” and massive increases in inequality, winning the hearts of so many brutally affected by Osbornian austerity. But this speech aged (as Gary Barlow once said to a particularly foul returning X factor contestant) like a bad curry.
The first stone in what has become the austerity avalanche characterising Starmerism, was the PM’s commendation of Thatcher – the torchbearer of neoliberalism – for dragging Britain ‘out of its stupor by setting loose our natural entrepreneurialism’. Now, we face a Chancellor and PM hell-bent upon addressing ‘the £22bn black hole’ in the UK’s public finances, a mission that has- as it always seems to- put a squeeze on the most vulnerable in our society.
The recent £1.5bn cut on winter fuel payments for elderly pensioners, due to harsher eligibility criteria, is just a thread in that tapestry. This marked the first change to the cold weather benefit since it was introduced under Blair in 1997: Starmer has staggeringly re-jigged a policy that even the Conservatives did not dare touch, and two million vulnerable pensioners will suffer because of it.
This proceeded Starmer’s refusal to scrap the Osbornian-era two-child benefit cap which prevents parents from claiming universal credit for more than two children and, were it to be abolished, would lift 250,000 children out of poverty, and lessen the effects of poverty on a further 850,000. In my view, Starmerism is a manifestation of a once-socialist party that is systematically gutting its left-wing roots from the inside out- this was made ever-more evident to me when he suspended seven Labour MPs for opposing this policy-choice.
Infuriatingly, these actions are being justified under the guise of necessity. Lucy Powell’s assertion that the economy could have crashed without the fuel payment cut, as she fearmongered ‘a run on the pound’, feeds into the larger myth that Starmer and his advisors continue to peddle about the urgent need to clear the UK’s debt. Whilst, of course, debt-clearing is important, plentiful research has shown that countries do not need to budget as households, nor can they feasibly externalise costs as household do. Contrary to their contentions, expansionary fiscal policy (aka spending more) can often foster conditions necessary (upskilling, reducing unemployment and stimulating demand) for debt to fall in the long-run.
Dartmouth College economics professor David Blanchflower made this very point: government borrowing and utilisation of Quantitative Easing- as done post-2008- is not the death-knell politicians purport it to be. Far be it for me to side with Jeremy Hunt [EVER], but his denunciation of Starmer’s debt-fixation as just a ‘smoke screen’ for cuts he ‘always intended on making’, rings eerily true to me.
Even if we did buy that some levels of austerity are integral to the resuscitation of the UK’s balance-sheet, Starmer has still derogated from nearly all his left-wing pledges toward taxing the uber-wealthy and big businesses which could actively help his bank-balancing agenda- and even cheekily bring about some vestige of wealth-redistribution. But no, Starmer has ruled out reintroducing the cap on bankers’ bonuses, or instituting a wealth tax. So, whilst British gas sees over 900% profit expansion in one year alone, it is elderly pensioners who are quite literally being left out in the cold.
Of course, I haven’t been wholly disappointed and, yes, we have seen respite from the spending cut and budget-balancing frenzy, for example Angela Rayner’s planning reforms promise to somewhat alleviate the waiting list for social housing, currently standing at 1.3 million. This, of course, is a step in a positive direction. But my point is that Starmerism has shown itself to be (at best) a centre-right regime that has, and continues to, honour the tradition of austerity that has nestled its way into the heart of 10 Downing Street.
“Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer Official Portrait” by UK Prime Minister is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.
Share this:
Like this:
Related