Look away, Sir Keir! Labour's bible has given its verdict on you

There was a time when the question of who would be editor of the New Statesman really, really mattered in the Labour leader's office.
I know, because I was a journalist on the left-wing weekly when Neil Kinnock took a close interest in who would succeed Hugh Stephenson, an ally of the Labour leader, when he left in 1986.
With a general election looming, Kinnock was determined that the title should not fall into the hands of the Bennites, as the Corbynites of those days were known. Fortunately, the board of the magazine was chaired by the former Labour MP Phillip Whitehead, and John Lloyd, a Financial Times journalist on the right of the Labour Party, was safely installed.
Unfortunately for Kinnock, Lloyd was a principled Labour right-winger: so much so that he wrote a leading article on the eve of the 1987 election condemning Kinnock's policy of one-sided nuclear disarmament.
Labour duly lost – but Kinnock seemed to conclude that the New Statesman was not the decisive factor in that defeat and that, actually, Lloyd was right. He took no interest in who would take over when Lloyd's brief but brilliant editorship ended after the election, but he did ditch the defence policy of giving up 'something for nothing'.
It wasn't until Tony Blair that the relationship was restored, when Ian Hargreaves, a former editor of The Independent, turned the magazine into a cheerleader for New Labour – although in 1996-97, few outposts of cultural life had not been drawn into the collective ra-ra for the Great Moderniser.
Blair lost interest the moment he became prime minister, but Gordon Brown, who hoped to succeed him, remained engaged. Brown had the advantage that the magazine at this stage was owned by Geoffrey Robinson, his friend and, briefly, a fellow minister – but, according to Peter Wilby, editor from 1998 to 2005, Robinson didn't interfere: 'I knew that, on critical appointments such as political editor, Robinson would want to establish 'what Gordon thinks' (fortunately, Gordon was usually too indecisive to settle on any particular name).'
Since then, Jason Cowley, who was editor for 16 years until the end of 2024, barely concealed his disdain for Ed Miliband's leadership and was hostile to Jeremy Corbyn. Cowley was positive but distant towards Starmer.
But now, Tom McTague, a former political editor at the Independent on Sunday and Cowley's successor, has launched his editorship with a 9,500-word profile of the prime minister, having accompanied Starmer on his recent travels.
McTague succeeds, more than any recent interviewer, in giving a sense of Starmer's character. He asks about Nick – Starmer's brother who had learning difficulties and who died of cancer on Boxing Day last year – and produces an unexpectedly emotional and inarticulate response. 'I can't really explain this,' Starmer admits.
McTague writes: 'He leans forward, still staring into my eyes, intense and lost, no longer a prime minister but a normal man bereaved, the tears back in his eyes.'
Since the 1980s, the roles of New Statesman editor and Labour leader seem to have reversed. Starmer seems puzzled and unsure about McTague's interest in him, while McTague insists that the prime minister ought to have something to say to the British people, including the left-wing segment of them that read the New Statesman.
McTague sees the magazine's role as being to explore and give voice to whatever it is that the modern Labour Party – or more specifically, the current Labour government – stands for.
Yet he seems to come away from his time spent with Starmer with a sense of frustration and disappointment. He sets off on a weeks-long project asking what connects Labour's missions and milestones: 'How do they form a coherent analysis of what has gone wrong in Britain and, therefore, what the government needs to do to fix it? Over the next few weeks, I will come back to these questions again and again, and wonder whether the nation will ever hear a convincing answer to them.'
McTague says of Starmer: 'He seems reluctant to poke at the reasons the country is so tense and angry and poor, to analyse the cause of the country's malaise.'
One striking feature of the profile is that Starmer's aides seem to have a clearer idea of the government's purpose than the prime minister himself. One of them is quoted as saying: 'If you don't give people hope, you will get the alternative – the destruction of failing institutions.'
McTague comments: 'On one level the prime minister appears intellectually to understand the challenge, even sometimes to agree with the analysis. And yet on another, he does not seem able – or willing – to channel such thoughts in a way that the country understands.'
It is a damning verdict because McTague is so obviously sympathetic to Starmer the person.
It would seem that the latest episode of the on-off relationship between Labour leader and the country's leading left-wing magazine will not end in a breach over an election-losing policy – as was the case with Kinnock and Lloyd – but in a complaint that Starmer seems unable to communicate what he thinks he won the election to do.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Independent

21 minutes ago

• The Independent

Efforts under way to evacuate Irish citizens from Israel

Efforts are under way to evacuate 15 Irish citizens from Israel, Ireland's deputy premier said. Simon Harris, Ireland's foreign affairs minister, said an operation was ongoing to evacuate 15 Irish citizens and their dependants from Israel, working with EU member states. He said they were working with a smaller number of citizens in Iran who had requested an evacuation. Around 29 Irish citizens in Iran had registered with the Irish embassy and around 200 in Israel. Mr Harris said he spoke to Iran's deputy foreign minister on Sunday, at their request, who was 'full of anger'. 'He did say to me that it was the view of Iran that the aggressors would have to learn lessons and pay a price,' he told reporters at Government Buildings. 'Of course I articulated in the strongest possible terms that Ireland and the European Union doesn't want to see that, we want to see people step back from the brink and engage in dialogue.' Mr Harris said the US strikes on Iran had made a 'volatile situation even more dangerous' and added an 'extra layer of complexity' to what was already a 'tinderbox'. Irish premier Micheal Martin and Mr Harris have both called for an 'urgent' de-escalation and a negotiated solution over Iran's nuclear facilities. They said they are in close contact with their European counterparts before a meeting of EU foreign leaders on Monday and of EU leaders later in the week. 'Diplomacy and dialogue is ultimately the only way to resolve these issues,' Mr Martin said. 'Iran should commit not to develop nuclear weapons and disavow its nuclear and uranium enrichment programme. 'Nuclear safety is an issue here, modern warfare is very destructive. It is civilians who ultimately suffer, and that is why we need an end to these wars and bring an end to conflict.' Mr Martin said the escalation on Sunday should not draw attention away from the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. 'We shouldn't lose sight of the catastrophe that is still unfolding in Gaza while the war between Iran and Israel continues,' he said. 'What is happening in Gaza is appalling and a breach of international humanitarian law, and again, innocent civilians and children are being starved there, and we need that to come to an end.' Staff from Ireland's embassy in Tehran left the country on Friday as the embassy was closed, and updates are being provided on more than 300 Irish peacekeepers stationed in Lebanon. Mr Harris said there were no plans to withdraw Irish troops and that 'decisions are being made constantly' to ensure their safety. When asked whether he supported US President Donald Trump's strikes on Iran, Mr Harris said: 'I think it's resulted in an extraordinarily dangerous escalation of a conflict that already best be described as a tinderbox. 'We're now entering a moment of particular danger, because I think the chances now of a spiral of escalation are more likely than ever before, and there is a real prospect now of the international community losing all control of this very, very volatile conflict.' He said there was only a 'very small' number of Irish citizens, many dual nationals, seeking an evacuation, and they were working with European counterparts. He said a significant update on this would be available in the hours ahead. 'Thank god we woke this morning to the International Atomic Energy Agency saying they haven't detected any increase in radiation,' he told RTE Radio. 'But imagine if we were waking up this morning to a situation where radiation levels were extraordinarily high, and the health and human danger that that would have presented far beyond Iran as well. So this is an extraordinarily dangerous time.' He said that it was 'sadly true' that international legal norms are not being adhered to, citing the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Israel's 'genocidal activity' in Palestine and now the Iran-Israel conflict. He said there was a diplomatic process in train and his understanding from readouts was 'there was a commitment from the Iranian side to further talks'. Mr Harris said Ireland and Europe are 'fully united in the clear view' that Iran should not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. 'The way to address this was always through a negotiated solution. Any alternative to that is simply too dangerous for civilians, for the Middle East region and for global security. 'Together with my EU counterparts, we will in the coming hours and days discuss and review the latest developments and consider the next steps Europe can usefully play to support de-escalation.' Minister for Culture Patrick O'Donovan said people woke up on Sunday 'terrified, really, to be quite honest, about the prospect of what's unfolding'. He told RTE's The Week In Politics it is 'terrifying' for citizens in Iran and Israel. 'It does take great people to make leaps of faith in particular places in time to come forward, whether it was in relation to (Anwar el-Sadat) in Egypt, and later on in relation to Bill Clinton and what he did, we do now require people to actually get people around the table,' he said. 'Because, ultimately, as the Taoiseach said, this is terrifying – not only for the innocent communities that are living in both countries, but as well as that for the neighbouring countries in the Middle East, who we obviously all hope are not drawn into a much bigger conflict.'

BBC News

23 minutes ago

• BBC News

Diplomatic tightrope on Iran just got more precarious for Starmer

Sir Keir Starmer has been treading a delicate diplomatic tightrope all week on the issue of night's airstrikes by the US mean the challenges facing the prime minister could now continue for Keir's repeated calls for de-escalation have clearly not been heeded by the White he has avoided direct UK involvement in military action and has sought to maintain what British diplomats claim is a solid and valuable relationship with US president Donald Trump. The response from ministers appears to be it was not the means they wanted, but they supported the UK has not explicitly endorsed the method, but the result - a delay in Iran getting nuclear weapons - is, they argue, in the UK's national Keir's position has shifted since Tuesday, when he seemed confident Trump would not intervene, after sitting next to him at a G7 dinner in Canada."I was sitting right next to President Trump, so I've no doubt, in my mind, the level of agreement there was," he four days later the president intervened. Did the prime minister misread Trump? Or did the president - whose unpredictability is central to his foreign policy approach - just change his mind? No 10 has told us it was given advanced warning of the US action, but the UK was not asked to take part. We do not know had been speculation that US B-2 stealth bombers could have used the UK's Diego Garcia airbase in the Indian Ocean as a waypoint en route to "Operation Midnight Hammer" involved B-2s flying non-stop for 18 hours to reach their targets, according to the latest on US strikes on IranIran's secretive nuclear site that only a US bomb could hitWhat we know about US strikes on IranIt is possible the UK was not asked for assistance because it would have been a difficult request to have been debates at the top of government in recent days about the legality of any UK involvement, with the attorney general, Lord Hermer, providing advice on a range of the next steps in the conflict unclear, the US could end up requesting military support from the UK in the coming weeks - prompting further difficult decisions for the prime minister. So, what next? US defence secretary Pete Hegseth has responded to concerns the US attacks could prompt the start of a long conflict by insisting: "This is most certainly not open-ended".Yet the actions of both the The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) suggest they fear retaliation from is why British diplomats have been planning a flight early next week to help "vulnerable British nationals and their dependents wanting to leave Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories".Defence sources have told me measures to protect British armed forces in the Middle East have been strengthened in the past few hours, with additional fighter jets already in the region and at "high readiness".One UK diplomat told me UK-US relations remain strong, as demonstrated by Foreign Secretary David Lammy's long meeting with secretary of state Marco Rubio and Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff on we do not know if - or how - Iran might respond, or whether the UK or its military could be targeted. Starmer's high-wire act has just become even more dangerous.

Telegraph

29 minutes ago

• Telegraph

Assisted dying, abortion, grooming gangs...Britain is morally deformed

I've a friend in a nursing home with very bad cancer. Physically, he feels OK, but there are hints of mental confusion. One afternoon we watched a quiz show on a blank television that wasn't turned on. It was proof, he said, that his mind couldn't be going because he got all the answers right. With the passage of Kim Leadbeater's Bill – save a stay of execution in the Lords – he suddenly looks like a candidate for assisted dying, and yet his suffering strengthens the case against. My friend, at this stage, is miserable less because of the tumour than because he's poor – can't afford a home care – and anxious because he wakes up in a strange place and imagines he's been kidnapped. He tells me he is at the centre of a plot by the state to kill the old by driving them mad. Though I assure him that no government is competent enough to pull such a thing off, I'm beginning to wonder if he has a point. Last week, the Commons voted to decriminalise abortion and legalise state-assisted suicide, the latest twist on 'cradle to grave'. Supporters spoke of humanising the law, of continuing the 'progressive' effort begun in the 1960s when abortion was first permitted. But there's a big contextual difference. Social liberalism in a time of economic growth was about increasing choice; today, in a period of austerity, it suggests narrowing options. Can't afford a baby? Terminate it. Worry you might burden the grandkids? Take a seat in the suicide pod. Of course this isn't what MPs meant by voting this way – but when you cut benefits for the elderly and cap them for children, and then make it easier to destroy yourself or your baby, it's hard not to infer a link. People keep saying to me, with a dash of British humour, that the state intends to kill us all to save money. Let's assume this is wrong. Let's call the speculation tasteless. Nevertheless, we have to account for why so many people feel this way, for the historic loss of trust. This is not some opioid-induced fantasy; human beings respond to cues. The third story in the grimmest week of Starmer's premiership was the publication of the Casey report, which confirmed that Asian men raped girls, and that officials declined to act because it might appear racist. This is mind-blowing stuff and shows how morally deformed our establishment now is. It has no coherent understanding of good and evil – in the difference between innocence and guilt – and in its yearning to look good by its own bizarre standard, it permits evil to flourish. In 2025, a person who prays outside an abortion clinic faces arrest. Meanwhile, a foreign-born, convicted rapist might avoid deportation by invoking their human rights. Religion, in fact, barely featured in the assisted dying debate, except to suggest that opponents might be acting under orders from the Pope. This fantasy pays a backhanded compliment to a faith that has been losing its influence for a very long time. As far back as 1937, Cosmo Gordon Lang, the archbishop of Canterbury, abstained in a Lords vote on divorce because he judged it 'no longer possible to impose the full Christian standard by law on a largely non-Christian population'. Christianity defined the West for so many centuries that its loss is experienced as the death of a fixed order, but we mustn't forget that Jesus was a revolutionary who overturned an even older system of ethics. Pagans, who largely felt life was meant to be enjoyed, thought the martyrdom-chasing Christians were nuts. One can see why. They taught that death is not the end, life is a test, and suffering is an opportunity to imitate the crucifixion. For example: the 7th century saint Cuthbert had a best friend, Herbert, and the two men dreamt of spending eternity together. But Cuthbert was a famously holy man, so would pass through purgatory to Heaven fast, whereas Herbert was just a very good man, so, they feared, might take longer – delaying their reunion. How did God fix the problem? He generously gave Herbert a long, painful illness, so that when he died on the same day as Cuthbert, his soul was so cleansed by suffering that they entered paradise at the same time. Weird, isn't it? Yes, but it also seeded into the West the idea that our life belongs to God, that He made us in his image, and this is a foundation for the principle that you can't take away another's life at will. This gradually flowered into rights for women or slaves, the peace movement and abolition of the death penalty. The problem with a commandment, of course, is that it's inflexible: it extends to unwanted foetuses and relatives in pain. Around the 19th century, we detached God from ethics, getting around the 'Thou Shalt Nots' and opening morality up to negotiation. Add individualism, toss in consumerism, and moral action today is contingent upon personality, economics, circumstance. Back when I was a socialist, before religion came into it, I wasn't comfortable with the idea that one unborn baby gets to live because its parents happen to be married and rich, whereas another is aborted because its mother is single and poor. Humanistic morality seemed surprisingly naive about the reality of the human condition, its appetites and deprivations. Looking at my friend in the nursing home, to what possible extent can one say he has 'agency'? I'm not sure he understands his diagnosis. The notion that he might have a chat with Kim Leadbeater, she with a smile and a clipboard in her hand, and make a rational choice to die next Wednesday afternoon is preposterous. The opportunity for error or manipulation is self-evident, yet many cannot, or will not, see it. For anyone who does choose assisted dying, I hope Christians respond with mercy. We are not in charge of Britain, haven't been for a long time, and I'm not sure I'd want to be. The best options left are to witness and accompany, to do the sometimes depressing, occasionally rewarding work of being with people when they go. I enjoy holding my friend's hand. I'd never have done that when he was healthy.