I usually like your writing, but I don’t like this one. Starmer is not a fool. I accept all your premises. It was clear when he took Office how badly the country was shafted. Everything has been gutted by the Tories for 15 years. We were systemically asset stripped, we were taken through Brexit, and a huge amount of the countries wealth was funnelled into the hands of a few. But this is not unique. It’s happening all over the world. And whilst your description may be more more or less less accurate, what you don’t say is what he should’ve done.
What other choices did he have? You haven’t said anything about the things he has achieved, just like so much of the media today. Everyone spends time saying how he’s failing, no one points of what he’s doing well. For example, the NHS waiting list have got shorter.
So much of what is happening is out of his control. He’s hardly to blame if the world goes into a recession. I think the choice he made today of looking up and out at the EU, and taking the decision to head back that way represents the best chance we actually have of getting through this coming crisis, of saving the economy and kickstarting the jobs market again, especially with the focus on bringing defence production back home out of the US.
I don’t see this piece of writing is helpful. The inherited issues are accurate, and your description of Starmer’s history and character is also reasonable, but casting him as the fool is uncharitable and unhelpful. He’s been dealt a shitty deck. I don’t think any of the current set of politicians wants to step into his role. He’s made a bold choice. It’s about time the bloody media gave him a chance.
Thank you for this — genuinely. And I mean that without ceremony.
You accept the premises. That matters more than you might think, because it means we are having the right argument.
On the Fool — I want to return to something in the piece itself, because I think it has been misread, and if so that is my responsibility as the writer. The Fool in Tarot is not a figure of contempt. He is card zero. He is not stupid, not corrupt, not malicious. He is a man of genuine capability who has made one specific error — assuming that what made him exceptional in the place he came from transfers automatically to the place he is going. That is not uncharitable. That is precise. And I would argue it is kinder, and more honest, than calling him incompetent — which is what much of the media does instead.
On what he should have done — you ask what other choices he had. That is a fair question. The answer I gave in the piece is: read the cards rather than build with them. What that means practically is this. The OBR told him in his first budget that the welfare trajectory was unsustainable. The ITEM Club told him the jobs market was contracting. The Hormuz risk was visible in the geopolitical background before his first King's Speech.
Reading those cards would have meant having harder conversations earlier — about welfare reform, about defence funding, about the structural gap between what the state costs and what the economy generates. I do not prescribe the specific policy. That genuinely is not what The Almighty Gob does. But reading the spread is different from building with it. And the piece makes that distinction as clearly as I know how.
On achievements — the NHS waiting list point is noted and it is real. The list has shortened from its peak. That is documented and it deserves to be said. It does not appear in this piece because this piece is not a balance sheet — it is an examination of a specific structural argument. Every piece cannot carry everything. The achievement is real. It is also happening against a backdrop where one in seven people still face a six-month wait and the four-hour A&E standard has not been met since 2015. Both things are true simultaneously.
On the EU pivot — you may well be right. It is the most interesting political development of the week and possibly the most significant strategic decision of his premiership. It did not make this piece because the piece was locked before the summit. It warrants its own examination — and it will get one.
On whether the media gives him a chance — I am not the media. I hold no press accreditation and seek none. I apply three questions to everything: Is it practical? Is it logical? What's the likely outcome? I applied them here. I will apply them to the EU pivot too. If the answers are different, the piece will say so.
He has been dealt a shitty deck. The piece says exactly that — three times. What it also says is that knowing the deck was shitty does not change what you choose to do with it.
That is still the question. I hope this fully addresses the points you made.
I usually like your writing, but I don’t like this one. Starmer is not a fool. I accept all your premises. It was clear when he took Office how badly the country was shafted. Everything has been gutted by the Tories for 15 years. We were systemically asset stripped, we were taken through Brexit, and a huge amount of the countries wealth was funnelled into the hands of a few. But this is not unique. It’s happening all over the world. And whilst your description may be more more or less less accurate, what you don’t say is what he should’ve done.
What other choices did he have? You haven’t said anything about the things he has achieved, just like so much of the media today. Everyone spends time saying how he’s failing, no one points of what he’s doing well. For example, the NHS waiting list have got shorter.
So much of what is happening is out of his control. He’s hardly to blame if the world goes into a recession. I think the choice he made today of looking up and out at the EU, and taking the decision to head back that way represents the best chance we actually have of getting through this coming crisis, of saving the economy and kickstarting the jobs market again, especially with the focus on bringing defence production back home out of the US.
I don’t see this piece of writing is helpful. The inherited issues are accurate, and your description of Starmer’s history and character is also reasonable, but casting him as the fool is uncharitable and unhelpful. He’s been dealt a shitty deck. I don’t think any of the current set of politicians wants to step into his role. He’s made a bold choice. It’s about time the bloody media gave him a chance.
Hi Katie.
Thank you for this — genuinely. And I mean that without ceremony.
You accept the premises. That matters more than you might think, because it means we are having the right argument.
On the Fool — I want to return to something in the piece itself, because I think it has been misread, and if so that is my responsibility as the writer. The Fool in Tarot is not a figure of contempt. He is card zero. He is not stupid, not corrupt, not malicious. He is a man of genuine capability who has made one specific error — assuming that what made him exceptional in the place he came from transfers automatically to the place he is going. That is not uncharitable. That is precise. And I would argue it is kinder, and more honest, than calling him incompetent — which is what much of the media does instead.
On what he should have done — you ask what other choices he had. That is a fair question. The answer I gave in the piece is: read the cards rather than build with them. What that means practically is this. The OBR told him in his first budget that the welfare trajectory was unsustainable. The ITEM Club told him the jobs market was contracting. The Hormuz risk was visible in the geopolitical background before his first King's Speech.
Reading those cards would have meant having harder conversations earlier — about welfare reform, about defence funding, about the structural gap between what the state costs and what the economy generates. I do not prescribe the specific policy. That genuinely is not what The Almighty Gob does. But reading the spread is different from building with it. And the piece makes that distinction as clearly as I know how.
On achievements — the NHS waiting list point is noted and it is real. The list has shortened from its peak. That is documented and it deserves to be said. It does not appear in this piece because this piece is not a balance sheet — it is an examination of a specific structural argument. Every piece cannot carry everything. The achievement is real. It is also happening against a backdrop where one in seven people still face a six-month wait and the four-hour A&E standard has not been met since 2015. Both things are true simultaneously.
On the EU pivot — you may well be right. It is the most interesting political development of the week and possibly the most significant strategic decision of his premiership. It did not make this piece because the piece was locked before the summit. It warrants its own examination — and it will get one.
On whether the media gives him a chance — I am not the media. I hold no press accreditation and seek none. I apply three questions to everything: Is it practical? Is it logical? What's the likely outcome? I applied them here. I will apply them to the EU pivot too. If the answers are different, the piece will say so.
He has been dealt a shitty deck. The piece says exactly that — three times. What it also says is that knowing the deck was shitty does not change what you choose to do with it.
That is still the question. I hope this fully addresses the points you made.
Take care.