I know any other leader would be 20 points head of the Tories by now, but what do traditional elements of the centre left establishment think of Keir Starmer's performance? As if answering this rarely-asked question, the Fabian Society's Andrew Harrop has been kind to offer
this hottake. Writing following the first Fabian conference in years where the centre and the right are back in charge of the party, it seems an aposite time for them to reflect on the "achievements" thus far and where Keir Starmer looks like he's going.
First, we hear Andrew's praise for the shadow cabinet as it demonstrated a "striking unity of purpose and tone", and this came through in contributions that were "values-driven but with a practical bent". This showed a middle way (
not a third way) between "the rudderless managerialism of new Labour, when at its most centrist, and the utopian excesses of the party’s recent pipedreams." Anyone playing centrist bingo as they read the piece can cross off the unironic deployment of "team of grown-ups", and thankfully we learn they're determined about winning power. Because, in case you didn't know, Labour has to win elections. Apparently, policy and pronouncements are judged by rebuilding relationships with voters (
funny way of showing it), and now Labour understands the coalition of voters it has to assemble. "There was much talk of reconnecting with lost working-class seats, but not at the expense of the party’s values or urban voters", he breathlessly writes. It's going to take more than speeches with Union Jack bunting and the assumption the
left have nowhere to go, I'm afraid. Summing up, Andrew says "with a frontbench team focused on unity, competence, ambition and electability the building blocks for a return to power are there."
To be honest, I'd have been surprised had Andrew written anything other than superlatives. Not only are more than half of the shadcab members Fabians and regular contributors to the magazine and quarterly pamphlets, there are congruences and alignments between the Society and "Starmerism", which is likely to mean the "world's oldest think tank" are the last people about to put the boot in. There are two close affinities they share which, to all intents and purposes,
annexes Starmerism to the Fabian tradition rather than having an identity of its own, apart from media shorthand. For one, both are
entirely patrician. They are the elites, they have the seats in the Commons, and once in government they're the ones who are going to enact change. No one doubts the importance of state power,
least of all the right, but the Fabians actively foreswear anything but the constitutionalist road. Even though (some forms of) extra parliamentary activity is right and proper in the most stuffy political theory, there is no room for this in the Fabian tradition. The Labour Party exists to elect the enlightened reformers who are going to make nice policies, and the labour movement exists to support the Labour Party - an
aristocratic inversion of socialist politics if there ever was one. Set in its context, Keir's
preference for management consultants to advise on party organisation, the internal authoritarianism of banning debates and suspending constituency officers, and his inability to challenge what is and isn't permitted in discussing Coronavirus is all of a piece stamped with Fabian Society branding.
The second issue is inseparable from the first: the absence of hegemony. Because there's no room in Fabianism for struggle other than over the ballot box, Gramsci is a revelation
and an abomination to such politics. There might be lip service paid to aligning Labour with the culture of voters, which is what we're hamfistedly seeing with all the Blue Labour crap, but there is no conception of a class politics (beyond their own
doxa of unthought, middle class and managerialist assumptions), let alone trying to build an alliance on the basis of our interests necessitating a full spectrum struggle in the workplaces, in
the communities, and in wider culture. The job is to present policies, look good in the media, and get people to vote for the party. Granted the absolute privilege this has in the Fabian imagination, it's hardly revelatory they lay the blame for Labour's 2019 defeat on the policy menu in the manifesto than the
substantive other factors. Hence Keir's preference for process criticisms at Prime Minister's Questions, the relentless focus on critiquing "incompetence" over arguing the politics, and the shameless tailing of Marcus Rashford on school meals are all symptomatic of a non-Gramscian approach to politics. Indeed it's an interesting paradox of the Fabian tradition that for all its stress on elite decision-making and getting the enlightened few into the cockpit of government how it fights shy of the business of
political leadership.
It is, of course, possible Labour could win an election on this basis. It's also possible the muscular centrism promised by the Biden administration might find an echo in the barely noticeable twitching of the shadow cabinet. But the problem with Fabianism, and by the practice of Starmerism seen these last nine months, is it privileges a very narrow range of activity. Where Keir Starmer is proving pro-active is in internal party struggles, but the end result is a party retreating from what nourishes it culminating in an empty vessel destined for a buffeting by the winds and random squalls of politics. Sticking to Fabianism is, obviously, what Keir finds comfortable, but for all the talk of seriousness and wanting to win power he is, unknowingly, plodding along the road least likely to get the party there.
www.independent.co.uk
averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com
labourgrassroots.com
www.theguardian.com
