I presume you are aware of the 10 Pledges that Starmer gave in his campaigning to become party leader. Almost all of which he has since abandoned. That indicates a cavalier attitude to principle and a ruthless single mindedness of purpose. He was happy to promise things he had no intention of delivering, knowing that only by doing so could he achieve his goal. If he is showing neo-Bevinite tendencies, that will be because he has identified that as the best way to maintain his position. That's it. What is his vision for the country? I suspect there isn't really one beyond trying to make things 'work better'. His real objective is to get re-elected. Which he is likely to fail in as without a guiding set of principles to work from he will flail from one idea to the next, eventually alienating everyone. He has no professed 'ideology' possibly because he sees that as something external that you choose. Apparently unaware that we all frame the world through a mixture of internal and external lenses. His internal setting is status quo with tweaks - aka neoliberal-lite. Any government that sets out to balance spending is destined for failure. Making decisions based on means rather than on ends is a recipe for chaos.
As for why TBI are so AI and Tech obsessed - you answered that when you said who funded them. Who stands to gain from all the high end computer tech? For big data systems like AI you need big backend databases. Ooh look...Oracle...
Blair was very keen on tech back in the day. I worked in IT in the NHS and well remember the disaster that was the National Program for IT (NPfIT), launched by TB in 2002. the largest public-sector IT program ever attempted in the UK. The idea was to integrate the vast array of incompatible systems that dominated most hospitals. The approach was classic 'third way' - or neoliberalism as it was really. Contract out to a quasi-competing group of big tech corps who each had a geographical area (rather like the water companies). Throw billionsof public money at it and try to spend your way through the many hurdles and technological problems. Fail. Then scale it down and try again. Rebadge and rename, then claim success on a vastly reduced goal.
Very interesting. I liked the three-way distinction between Blair, neo-Bevan and neo-Crossland and this post helps flesh that out.
The question I have is, why do Starmer and Reeves need to accommodate Blairites at all? I see the obvious advantages of having a broad tent within government, but when push comes to shove the neo-Bevanites have power and, thanks to the election result, the political capital to push their narrative. Blair regretted not being more assertive in his first term. What stops Starmer and Reeves not being more assertive with their narrative now?
Well I think the need was more obvious in 2019 when Labour was in the wilderness. In essence, this I think is when the deal was struck (see https://williamcullernebown.substack.com/p/starmerism-what-is-it-really). And now you stick with the deal because you're winning, because the scope for disruption is substantial and because you are basically trustworthy. If the neo-Bevinites make a success of being in office, then it's inevitable that the Blairites will find themselves squeezed in many ways. If not, their time may come again.
That makes sense and I suspect that most people would stick with the deal for the reasons you give.
And yet: Starmer was ruthless and clear-sighted in opposition. He (and McSweeney) understood who were the most important internal rivals to neo-Bevinism then, and acted accordingly. Will they do the same now? I think we don't yet know the answer, and one reason is the lack of neo-Bevinite narrative.
I presume you are aware of the 10 Pledges that Starmer gave in his campaigning to become party leader. Almost all of which he has since abandoned. That indicates a cavalier attitude to principle and a ruthless single mindedness of purpose. He was happy to promise things he had no intention of delivering, knowing that only by doing so could he achieve his goal. If he is showing neo-Bevinite tendencies, that will be because he has identified that as the best way to maintain his position. That's it. What is his vision for the country? I suspect there isn't really one beyond trying to make things 'work better'. His real objective is to get re-elected. Which he is likely to fail in as without a guiding set of principles to work from he will flail from one idea to the next, eventually alienating everyone. He has no professed 'ideology' possibly because he sees that as something external that you choose. Apparently unaware that we all frame the world through a mixture of internal and external lenses. His internal setting is status quo with tweaks - aka neoliberal-lite. Any government that sets out to balance spending is destined for failure. Making decisions based on means rather than on ends is a recipe for chaos.
As for why TBI are so AI and Tech obsessed - you answered that when you said who funded them. Who stands to gain from all the high end computer tech? For big data systems like AI you need big backend databases. Ooh look...Oracle...
Blair was very keen on tech back in the day. I worked in IT in the NHS and well remember the disaster that was the National Program for IT (NPfIT), launched by TB in 2002. the largest public-sector IT program ever attempted in the UK. The idea was to integrate the vast array of incompatible systems that dominated most hospitals. The approach was classic 'third way' - or neoliberalism as it was really. Contract out to a quasi-competing group of big tech corps who each had a geographical area (rather like the water companies). Throw billionsof public money at it and try to spend your way through the many hurdles and technological problems. Fail. Then scale it down and try again. Rebadge and rename, then claim success on a vastly reduced goal.
Thanks Zoltan. I think this point is well made and just today posted an article that deals with the issue you are raising: https://open.substack.com/pub/williamcullernebown/p/big-tech-in-the-uk?r=7eg9s&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Very interesting. I liked the three-way distinction between Blair, neo-Bevan and neo-Crossland and this post helps flesh that out.
The question I have is, why do Starmer and Reeves need to accommodate Blairites at all? I see the obvious advantages of having a broad tent within government, but when push comes to shove the neo-Bevanites have power and, thanks to the election result, the political capital to push their narrative. Blair regretted not being more assertive in his first term. What stops Starmer and Reeves not being more assertive with their narrative now?
Well I think the need was more obvious in 2019 when Labour was in the wilderness. In essence, this I think is when the deal was struck (see https://williamcullernebown.substack.com/p/starmerism-what-is-it-really). And now you stick with the deal because you're winning, because the scope for disruption is substantial and because you are basically trustworthy. If the neo-Bevinites make a success of being in office, then it's inevitable that the Blairites will find themselves squeezed in many ways. If not, their time may come again.
That makes sense and I suspect that most people would stick with the deal for the reasons you give.
And yet: Starmer was ruthless and clear-sighted in opposition. He (and McSweeney) understood who were the most important internal rivals to neo-Bevinism then, and acted accordingly. Will they do the same now? I think we don't yet know the answer, and one reason is the lack of neo-Bevinite narrative.