Political Observer wonders where that ‘left wing’ might be? Not at The Economist, The Financial Times, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Spectator, The New Statesman.*

The regular reader has to wince at Janan Ganesh’s latest political commentary, that now places him in the company of the other columnists, who have mastered the unimaginative, indeed boring ‘Anti-Leftism’ of British Corporate Media. The head-line and sub-headline tell the story:

Headline: No, Starmer should not be bolder

Sub-headline: ‘Bold’ is media-speak for ‘left wing’, and Britain doesn’t need a left turn

https://www.ft.com/content/d17e5a66-b792-45a3-a1ff-8966219c75d1

The Patient Reader is ‘rewarded’ in the first three paragraphs:

Just a month now from power, Sir Keir Starmer, that uncomplaining recipient of advice from pundits who never thought he’d get here, is urged to be bolder in his plans for Britain.

Excellent. We all agree, then. Labour should draw up the loosest regulations on artificial intelligence in the G7, to attract AI investment. It should make extra spending on public services conditional on serious reform of them. (The test of seriousness is that trade unions protest on the streets.) It should question the point of a “binding” net zero law in a nation that contributes 1 per cent of global emissions. This party of workers should cut the out-of-work benefits bill to fund lower income tax. After the disgrace of the High Speed 2 rail project — the lost cash, the lost time — Whitehall should be accorded a smaller, not larger, role in economic management.

Editor: That’s settled, then. So nice to have a consensus… in what world!

That’s settled, then. So nice to have a consensus. What? Not that kind of boldness? You know, somehow I didn’t think so.

It reads as rather dubious sarcasm. Its like that once audacious stylist reverts to Ante-Leftism! From David Cameron, Mrs. May, Boris Johnson, to Liz Truss & Kwasi Kwarteng and then Sunak, demonstrates utter governmental incompetence? 14 years of certifiable incompetence doesn’t register with Ganesh. The Left is his target of choice.

“Bold” is a journalistic euphemism for “left wing”. Demanding boldness, like demanding “radicalism” and “vision”, has become a way of saying “tax and spend more”, without having to defend that position square-on.

Editor: Next in line is Potted History:

And no wonder. That defence is hard to mount. The tax burden in the UK is the highest since the 1950s. It is still lower than in much of continental Europe, true, but Britain isn’t continental Europe. It doesn’t have the single market to offer. Even when it did, the nation’s competitive advantage tended to be ease of doing business. (As opposed to French infrastructure or German technical skills.) Now, Labour already proposes to increase the non-wage labour costs on business through regulations. So, if I follow the argument of the “bold” camp, Starmer’s vision for Britain should be European taxes and European labour laws without the compensation of the European market. Might it not be simpler to put a “Closed For Business” sign at Heathrow arrivals?

Editor: When broken down into specificities, the case for boldness becomes unsettling, hence its reliance on euphemism and code. The Reader must wonder at the fact, that like his mentor/guru Tony Blair, Starmer is a Thatcherite/Neo-Liberal. He has purged The Left from the Labour Party, so the Ganesh’s essay is in search of a reason to be! While dragooning that ‘Left’ into the dubiousness of his fictional political reverie! Reader only 434 words to go!

Editor: A selection from that 434 words:

…

Given these constraints, Starmer’s plans are, in fact, on the ambitious side.

…

If boldness means statism, which it almost always does, Starmer doesn’t lack it.

…

Boldness is questionable policy, then. But it is worse politics.

…

First, the tired, rote-learned questions. “What is Starmerism?” “Will the real Keir Starmer please stand up?” (It doesn’t help that his name scans so well with the Eminem song.)

Editor: the reference to the Eminem’s song, pure pandering to his ‘hipster’ followers!

…

Then the nonsensical comparisons with predecessors. “Say what you will about Tony Blair, but you knew where you stood with him.” No, you didn’t. Blair in 1997 was accused of being foggy and evasive to the point of mendaciousness.

Editor: Starmer is Tony Blair’s political creature! Call it Thatcherism, with a botched face-lift ?

Editor: the last two paragraphs Ganesh makes the claim ‘Governing is like writing a column: you only find out what you believe by doing it for years, responding to real events’: this writer is tempted to opine that Ganesh does not just just write a column of opinion, but writes Anti-Left Propaganda, for a newspaper that shares in the most reactionary kind politics, whose only real competitor is The Economist! The last paragraphs of the Ganesh essay demonstrate his self-regard, that has blossomed into the narcissism of the Pundit Class!

There is a misunderstanding here about politics. Governing is like writing a column: you only find out what you believe by doing it for years, responding to real events. Your -ism, if you have one, becomes clear in retrospect. Even Thatcherism ended up meaning something different, less monetarist, than it did at its inflation-obsessed start. Who would have guessed that the coy Blair of 1997 would flood the public sector with cash and retire a war leader?

It wasn’t that he withheld his true intent from voters. He just couldn’t know the circumstances in which he would govern, or even his own instincts under duress. And that was a stabler world than ours. So how on earth could Starmer? He has given about as clear a sense of what he will do as most leaders of the opposition. It is bold to a fault.

Political Observer

* All these publication defamed Corbyn!