Keir Starmer is no Tony Blair. The differences are not all obvious

Receive free Labour Party UK updates

This article is an on-site version of our Inside Politics newsletter. Sign up here to get the newsletter sent straight to your inbox every weekday

Good morning. Here’s a sentence that you can safely use if you can’t think of anything profound to say about British politics: Keir Starmer is no Tony Blair.

Nonetheless, some of the most important reasons for this are neglected. One of them is that the political and intellectual positions of their party are very different. I went to the launch of a fascinating new history of New Labour’s early years yesterday. In addition to being a great piece of archival work, it has some interesting things to think about for all of us in the UK today. Some thoughts on that below.

Inside Politics is edited by Georgina Quach. Follow Stephen on Twitter @stephenkb and please send gossip, thoughts and feedback to insidepolitics@ft.com

Future imperfect

Last night I went to the launch of the new book Futures of Socialism by Colm Murphy, lecturer in British politics at Queen Mary, University of London and deputy director of the Mile End Institute. It’s a rich history of the emergence of New Labour starting in 1973 and ending in 1997.

Through his extensive use of archival material, Murphy makes a compelling argument: that the popular account of the rise of New Labour, in which thanks to Tony Blair the party accommodated itself to Thatcherism, is simplistic. In Murphy’s telling, the emergence of New Labour is a much more complex and much more intellectual endeavour than that. (Sadly it is an academic monograph, so while it has plenty to recommend for a lay reader, it comes at a hefty price. Ask your local librarian to get a copy and/or write peevish letters to Cambridge University Press until they bring out a reasonably priced paperback.)

Readers Also Like: Firms with insider CEOs ‘more likely to survive a financial crisis’

Murphy wisely avoids drawing too many contemporary parallels but reading the book it was obvious to me that there is an unflattering one to be drawn between the intellectual foment of Labour’s last prolonged stint in opposition from 1979 to 1997 and, well, what Labour has now.

Part of that, as I wrote in my column recently, is also a reflection on the Conservative government. Labour’s debate over “modernisation” in the 1980s and 1990s was shaped in part by the policy successes of Margaret Thatcher and John Major. Blair benefited from what, in economic terms, must be the most benign inheritance ever bestowed upon an incoming government when he routed Major in 1997.

One reason why the Labour party has a somewhat woolly debate about the future — big picture missions and objectives, yes, but not anything comparable with what went on during the span of Murphy’s book — is that it does not have anything like that inheritance now. (If you haven’t yet, do give Chris Giles’ brilliant but bleak account of what Labour would inherit should it win the next election a read.)

One way that politicians are just like you and me is that if they are worrying about an uncomfortable truth they often just choose to ignore it. One such difficult truth is Brexit. The last Labour government’s economic model suffered a pretty major blow in the global financial crisis, and then Brexit and the loss of our single market membership finished it off.

Readers Also Like: Centrica boss calls for energy regulator to abolish standing charges which add around £300 to customer bills

Added to that, the global economy is heading towards a new era of protectionism. (You have to call it “de-risking” or “friendshoring” these days. It’s political correctness gone mad.)

During the Liberal Democrat conference in 2019, Guy Verhofstadt, the then Brexit co-ordinator for the EU Parliament, told the hall that the world of tomorrow was “a world of empires”, and given the choice between the American, Chinese and EU empires the UK should choose the EU. His speech was not, I think, a wise one politically speaking. But in policy terms, everything in global politics since then has confirmed the essential truth of his argument. (That said, as Gideon Rachman’s smart column this week reminds me, the European “empire” is some way away from having the ability to defend itself or to act with genuine strategic autonomy.)

As Janan Ganesh notes today, many in Labour are putting a lot of faith in the idea that its climate spending will help it unlock growth and prosperity, and much of the intellectual energy around the Starmer project is blowing from the US and Joe Biden’s administration. But the US is in fact an empire, at least under the Verhofstadt definition. The UK isn’t one and the difficulties of being outside of the nearest thing its immediate neighbourhood has to one still haven’t gone away.

Now try this

I saw Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny. I love a corporate, crowd-pleasing blockbuster but this was too much for me: a film that managed to spend an eye-watering amount of money while still giving off an overwhelming smell of “will this do?” Danny Leigh had a rather better impression of it, though: read his review here, and his selection of the six best films of the year so far here.

Readers Also Like: UK public borrowing comes in lower than forecast