This piece originally appeared in last week’s Times Literary Supplement. I thought it would be of interest to subscribers and they have kindly agreed to let me reproduce it here. It’s a review of “Get In” by Patrick Maguire and Gabriel Pogrund but I used the generous wordcount to look at the broader shift towards powerful unelected advisers in British politics.
One of the most notable results of McSweeny’s approach has been two absolute red line commitments, on tax and Europe, which have made governing incalculably more difficult for Labour; so he has arguably hamstrung the Government he helped get elected right from the start.
It’s somewhat unclear why *not* committing to the huge process and mechanism of A49 negotiations with the EU and a rejoin/don’t rejoin referendum has made ‘governing incalculably more difficult?
Surely Starmer has not unreasonably said he doesn’t want to spend most of his 1st term in office re-running 2016 Groundhog Day style and distracting government and a civil service clearly incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.
The red lines aren’t just about rejoin they are about any closer formalised economic relationship with the EU - and that makes higher economic growth much more difficult.
On McSweeney and the BNP. In 1977 I was Conservative GLC candidate for Deptford (David Grant was the energetic Parliamentary candidate). We inherited a situation in which in 1976 the Conservatives had (very unusually in those days) failed to put up candidates for two by elections for Lewisham Council and Labour had only held on because both the National Front and National Party (the split, hilariously, was over sexuality) had fielded candidates in both wards.
In the 1977 GLC campaign (the GLC in those days comprised one member from each Parliamentary constituency) I knocked on every door in the two wards where the NF/NP had done well. I made no promises over hanging or "sending them back". In fact many white mothers were completely with David's and my view that West Indian mothers were setting an excellent example by getting their children to do home work and should be put on school governing bodies.
The sole reason the NF/NP had done well was that the NF/NP candidates had knocked on doors and talked to the voters who really wanted no more than to be treated properly and not as electoral fodder. As soon as Conservatives started to canvass and speak to them those who wanted Labour out - and remember that this was after some pretty bad behaviour under Wilson (corruption in the North East) and disastrous economic mismanagement (the IMF had to be called in) - voted for a Conservative candidate who bothered to talk to them and write letters about broken down or filthy lifts etc.
I suspect that McSweeney's experience in Barking was identical - voters want to be treated with respect which requires candidates to call on them; it does not mean that candidates have to go along with particular views - you cited hanging which was regularly raised by Conservative selection committee members but seldom on the doorstep where voters wanted to talk about schools or bins or their jobs or policing. Margaret Thatcher's Iron Lady speeches did hit a chord - this was only 32 years after the end of a war when those over 40 could remember being bombed. They did not like the idea of being left defenceless.
What I struggle to understand is why Labour's Comms are so very poor with McSweeney at the helm given his grassroots background and supposed emotional intelligence? What stands out to me with this Labour government is the lack of empathy and terrible communication skills. The recent disability benefit cuts are a perfect example of how not to deliver bad news.
Look no further than the other side of the pond where Elon Musk and Stephen Miller, two of the most far right, fascist individuals ever, are running the country ... straight into the ground. Everyone knows Trump is just a puppeteer.
This fascinating piece immediately brought to my American mind the brilliant British TV series "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" wherein Bernard (?), the civil servant chief deputy, ran the government, and ran circles around the Prime/Minister without ever breaking a sweat. He knew the system inside and out, and the beleaguered press secretary fuddled his way through what was left. An extraordinarily well-written (and acted) TV show, mirroring those mentioned herein.
Biggest difference now is the power of the dangerously propagandized social media, almost all of which is owned by Rupert Murdoch or other far right billionaires, competing for clicks, viewers, and, in effect, voters. With no balance or counterpoint of any kind, the journalistic failings of America's flagship newspapers (NYTimes, Washington Post) have left no one speaking truth to power.
The thing about Bernard and Yes Minister is they were civil servants who did have to follow rules, which are much less clear for political advisers. I actually have a chapter in my book that traces this evolution in British politics from Yes Minister to a newer series called The Thick Of It, which is all about advisers.
On Bernard Ingham: apart from a short time when he ran an energy section in the Dept of Industry under Callaghan, Ingham was largely a press officer. Before he worked famously for Mrs T, he was press officer at the Department of Employment during the Heath govt for Robert Carr and Maurice Macmillan, Both spoke warmly of his loyalty and great competence. Both had the same story: the first time he met them he told them he had stood as a Labour council candidate. Neither had any doubt in those days that a civil servant would loyally serve his or her political master. Both regarded Bernard Ingham as a valuable and trusted member of their team.
Thank you for this which I read with interest. But would not the debate about immigration be clearer if there was a clear distinction between legal and illegal immigrants?
There is a distinction but I'm talking here about legal migration. People will say that is too high (and it has been very high for specific reasons in the last few years) but also support every major category of immigration (healthcare, students etc...)
Some 90% of the boat people qualify for residency in Britain. The answer in most cases is to set up offices in the countries where most of the boat people come from and assure people who want to come to Britain that if they apply and qualify they will get a Visa.
Which really goes to the point I am making. But by crossing on boats, they are not legal immigrants. And by becoming illegal, they only add to the problem.
Most western countries have a problem with an ageing pòpulation and a declining workforce. Lawful immigration is just about the only way of resolving this.
Ok, when we need immigrants why not offer Visas in countries with educated people who are prepared to work in hospitals, Care Homes, vegetable packing stations, etc. Starmer and Sunak were faced with a problem that would not exist if proper immigration offices were open in India and Vietnam. Then the only illegals would be the people we don’t want, many of them criminals, who could not afford the fees of criminals who organised overloaded boats. The Americans had practically free entry to Europeans up to 1920 when they decided to limit immigrants by country quota. Despite all the precautions, over 1 million illegals enter America every year.
I totally agree. But when the media and politicians conflate legal, wanted, immigration with unlawful immigration, the convewrsation becomes confused. So why not seperate out the two subjects? And make a real effort to explain why lawful immigration is both a necessity and an economic advantage? But politicians are too frightened and cannot get past the fear of the next election.
The problem with the Guru concept is that most politicians in office are too busy with the day to day running of the machine. Cameron and Osborne were hopeless during the 2016 EU Referendum and Corbyn was not a supporter of the EU. The ERG led by Rees-Mogg forced all the anti-Remain options on Cameron and he could do nothing/would do nothing to prevent nearly half a million ex-pats being deprived of the vote. Only Cummins and Johnson got any proper coverage from the Press so Remain had a hill to climb which was beyond them.
I wouldn't be so sure that Starmer lacks a vision of how he wants Britain to be. He just hasn't tied it to a programmatic ideology that emphasises means rather than ends. On the whole that seems an attractive trait - certainly compared to the approach that starts with a conclusion as go how a problem should be solved and then seeks to retrospectively come with ways of making that work
One possible weakness with an open-minded approach is that ministers / prime ministers that are bogged down in the day-to-day business of government fall prey to off-the-peg solutions peddled by 'think-tanks', NGOs, lobby groups, which they then implement without thinking. The Truss government's meltdown looks like one example of this, I suspect the recent policy regarding inheritance tax on farmers and family businesses is another.
I suspect there are two reasons. First, and strangely for a lawyer, I don't think Starmer is glibly articulate. He can explain himself, but it's in a rather plodding, logical way.
Secondly, his 'vision' - though I doubt he'd call it that - is one where Beveridge's evils have been banished, where ordinary people like his father are respected, and where things just bloody work. Not a bad world to live in.
But a vision isn't purely about the end point it's how you get there (even if one accepts this is what he wants). If he can't communicate that (and articulation isn't a glib quality in politics) then he can't lead.
I agree that nowadays conveying a vision as a political leader should require the ability to explain how one means to get to one's objectives (I'm not sure politics ever has an 'end point' apart from political and physical mortality). Likewise, I agree that articulacy in itself is not glib, though there are glib people in politics and elsewhere who are fearsomely articulate. I think a problem for Starmer is that his pragmatic objective of competence and commonplace decency, with all the nuances and trade-offs this requires, lacks the grandiose language of more programmatic or dramatic ideologies.
Think the summation of this is McSweeney and thus Labour is that are all tactics and no strategy and you can see how they are governed as they pushed from pillar to post by events. It's going to be a long four years.
I enjoyed Get In but I wondered if it was distorted by the sources and by the fact Starmer probably regards it as beneath his dignity to give briefings to journos/authors.
Things that seemed significant to me about the years leading up to the victory - the incredibly disciplined way the Shadow Cabinet hammered home the "12/13/14 years of Tory government" message really undermined Sunak's attempts to present himself as a new broom. There was also no mention of the LibDems and the way they were effectively given free rein in all constituencies thought to favour them.
One of the most notable results of McSweeny’s approach has been two absolute red line commitments, on tax and Europe, which have made governing incalculably more difficult for Labour; so he has arguably hamstrung the Government he helped get elected right from the start.
It’s somewhat unclear why *not* committing to the huge process and mechanism of A49 negotiations with the EU and a rejoin/don’t rejoin referendum has made ‘governing incalculably more difficult?
Surely Starmer has not unreasonably said he doesn’t want to spend most of his 1st term in office re-running 2016 Groundhog Day style and distracting government and a civil service clearly incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.
The red lines aren’t just about rejoin they are about any closer formalised economic relationship with the EU - and that makes higher economic growth much more difficult.
We have a full quota free and tariff free FTA with the EU known as the Trade and Continuity Agreement ?
On McSweeney and the BNP. In 1977 I was Conservative GLC candidate for Deptford (David Grant was the energetic Parliamentary candidate). We inherited a situation in which in 1976 the Conservatives had (very unusually in those days) failed to put up candidates for two by elections for Lewisham Council and Labour had only held on because both the National Front and National Party (the split, hilariously, was over sexuality) had fielded candidates in both wards.
In the 1977 GLC campaign (the GLC in those days comprised one member from each Parliamentary constituency) I knocked on every door in the two wards where the NF/NP had done well. I made no promises over hanging or "sending them back". In fact many white mothers were completely with David's and my view that West Indian mothers were setting an excellent example by getting their children to do home work and should be put on school governing bodies.
The sole reason the NF/NP had done well was that the NF/NP candidates had knocked on doors and talked to the voters who really wanted no more than to be treated properly and not as electoral fodder. As soon as Conservatives started to canvass and speak to them those who wanted Labour out - and remember that this was after some pretty bad behaviour under Wilson (corruption in the North East) and disastrous economic mismanagement (the IMF had to be called in) - voted for a Conservative candidate who bothered to talk to them and write letters about broken down or filthy lifts etc.
I suspect that McSweeney's experience in Barking was identical - voters want to be treated with respect which requires candidates to call on them; it does not mean that candidates have to go along with particular views - you cited hanging which was regularly raised by Conservative selection committee members but seldom on the doorstep where voters wanted to talk about schools or bins or their jobs or policing. Margaret Thatcher's Iron Lady speeches did hit a chord - this was only 32 years after the end of a war when those over 40 could remember being bombed. They did not like the idea of being left defenceless.
What I struggle to understand is why Labour's Comms are so very poor with McSweeney at the helm given his grassroots background and supposed emotional intelligence? What stands out to me with this Labour government is the lack of empathy and terrible communication skills. The recent disability benefit cuts are a perfect example of how not to deliver bad news.
Look no further than the other side of the pond where Elon Musk and Stephen Miller, two of the most far right, fascist individuals ever, are running the country ... straight into the ground. Everyone knows Trump is just a puppeteer.
This fascinating piece immediately brought to my American mind the brilliant British TV series "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" wherein Bernard (?), the civil servant chief deputy, ran the government, and ran circles around the Prime/Minister without ever breaking a sweat. He knew the system inside and out, and the beleaguered press secretary fuddled his way through what was left. An extraordinarily well-written (and acted) TV show, mirroring those mentioned herein.
Biggest difference now is the power of the dangerously propagandized social media, almost all of which is owned by Rupert Murdoch or other far right billionaires, competing for clicks, viewers, and, in effect, voters. With no balance or counterpoint of any kind, the journalistic failings of America's flagship newspapers (NYTimes, Washington Post) have left no one speaking truth to power.
The thing about Bernard and Yes Minister is they were civil servants who did have to follow rules, which are much less clear for political advisers. I actually have a chapter in my book that traces this evolution in British politics from Yes Minister to a newer series called The Thick Of It, which is all about advisers.
Thank you, Mr. Freedman, for the reply. I shall look for 'The Thick of It' to view in the States, and clearly *must* get your book!
On Bernard Ingham: apart from a short time when he ran an energy section in the Dept of Industry under Callaghan, Ingham was largely a press officer. Before he worked famously for Mrs T, he was press officer at the Department of Employment during the Heath govt for Robert Carr and Maurice Macmillan, Both spoke warmly of his loyalty and great competence. Both had the same story: the first time he met them he told them he had stood as a Labour council candidate. Neither had any doubt in those days that a civil servant would loyally serve his or her political master. Both regarded Bernard Ingham as a valuable and trusted member of their team.
Yes, though I think obvious from his later writings that he adored Thatcher.
Thank you for this which I read with interest. But would not the debate about immigration be clearer if there was a clear distinction between legal and illegal immigrants?
There is a distinction but I'm talking here about legal migration. People will say that is too high (and it has been very high for specific reasons in the last few years) but also support every major category of immigration (healthcare, students etc...)
Some 90% of the boat people qualify for residency in Britain. The answer in most cases is to set up offices in the countries where most of the boat people come from and assure people who want to come to Britain that if they apply and qualify they will get a Visa.
Which really goes to the point I am making. But by crossing on boats, they are not legal immigrants. And by becoming illegal, they only add to the problem.
Most western countries have a problem with an ageing pòpulation and a declining workforce. Lawful immigration is just about the only way of resolving this.
Ok, when we need immigrants why not offer Visas in countries with educated people who are prepared to work in hospitals, Care Homes, vegetable packing stations, etc. Starmer and Sunak were faced with a problem that would not exist if proper immigration offices were open in India and Vietnam. Then the only illegals would be the people we don’t want, many of them criminals, who could not afford the fees of criminals who organised overloaded boats. The Americans had practically free entry to Europeans up to 1920 when they decided to limit immigrants by country quota. Despite all the precautions, over 1 million illegals enter America every year.
I totally agree. But when the media and politicians conflate legal, wanted, immigration with unlawful immigration, the convewrsation becomes confused. So why not seperate out the two subjects? And make a real effort to explain why lawful immigration is both a necessity and an economic advantage? But politicians are too frightened and cannot get past the fear of the next election.
Incidentally, thank uyou for the courtesy of your reples.
I do just love it any time Sam has to talk about Steve Hilton
The problem with the Guru concept is that most politicians in office are too busy with the day to day running of the machine. Cameron and Osborne were hopeless during the 2016 EU Referendum and Corbyn was not a supporter of the EU. The ERG led by Rees-Mogg forced all the anti-Remain options on Cameron and he could do nothing/would do nothing to prevent nearly half a million ex-pats being deprived of the vote. Only Cummins and Johnson got any proper coverage from the Press so Remain had a hill to climb which was beyond them.
I wouldn't be so sure that Starmer lacks a vision of how he wants Britain to be. He just hasn't tied it to a programmatic ideology that emphasises means rather than ends. On the whole that seems an attractive trait - certainly compared to the approach that starts with a conclusion as go how a problem should be solved and then seeks to retrospectively come with ways of making that work
One possible weakness with an open-minded approach is that ministers / prime ministers that are bogged down in the day-to-day business of government fall prey to off-the-peg solutions peddled by 'think-tanks', NGOs, lobby groups, which they then implement without thinking. The Truss government's meltdown looks like one example of this, I suspect the recent policy regarding inheritance tax on farmers and family businesses is another.
If he does have a vision he hasn't told anyone about it, which is a problem when you're a leader.
I suspect there are two reasons. First, and strangely for a lawyer, I don't think Starmer is glibly articulate. He can explain himself, but it's in a rather plodding, logical way.
Secondly, his 'vision' - though I doubt he'd call it that - is one where Beveridge's evils have been banished, where ordinary people like his father are respected, and where things just bloody work. Not a bad world to live in.
But a vision isn't purely about the end point it's how you get there (even if one accepts this is what he wants). If he can't communicate that (and articulation isn't a glib quality in politics) then he can't lead.
I agree that nowadays conveying a vision as a political leader should require the ability to explain how one means to get to one's objectives (I'm not sure politics ever has an 'end point' apart from political and physical mortality). Likewise, I agree that articulacy in itself is not glib, though there are glib people in politics and elsewhere who are fearsomely articulate. I think a problem for Starmer is that his pragmatic objective of competence and commonplace decency, with all the nuances and trade-offs this requires, lacks the grandiose language of more programmatic or dramatic ideologies.
Think the summation of this is McSweeney and thus Labour is that are all tactics and no strategy and you can see how they are governed as they pushed from pillar to post by events. It's going to be a long four years.
I enjoyed Get In but I wondered if it was distorted by the sources and by the fact Starmer probably regards it as beneath his dignity to give briefings to journos/authors.
Things that seemed significant to me about the years leading up to the victory - the incredibly disciplined way the Shadow Cabinet hammered home the "12/13/14 years of Tory government" message really undermined Sunak's attempts to present himself as a new broom. There was also no mention of the LibDems and the way they were effectively given free rein in all constituencies thought to favour them.
Always a risk with these books but from my own conversations it seems like a fair summary of the set up.