Why Keir Starmer is more like Clement Attlee than you think
Both were born and raised in and around London. Both practised law before politics – the grounding in detail is obviously helpful when switching to government. The commitment to facts and clear exposition demanded in a court case probably also accounts for at least some of the inscrutable and dispassionate greyness of their public speaking, heightened when they faced the expansive oratorical styles of Winston Churchill and Boris Johnson across the despatch box.
Another emerging similarity between Starmer and Attlee is the forging of their top teams. Attlee's no-nonsense style has been rightly lauded: 'You've had a good innings; time to put your bat up in the pavilion' was one of the more pleasant dismissals, while 'not up to it' was his response to another who asked for feedback. 'The best butcher since the war' was Wilson's conclusion.
Compare this to Starmer who now has a track record of not always choosing the right people first time, but who is fast and ruthless in his despatching of those deemed the wrong fit or having crossed a line, as Sue Gray and Louise Haigh found respectively.
Attlee was blessed with ministerial giants he led such as Ernest Bevin, Hugh Dalton, Aneurin Bevan and Stafford Cripps, a cabinet that was to go down in history as delivering the NHS and wider welfare state, Indian independence, Nato and setting the path to a British nuclear deterrent.
Though the current Labour government started really quite slowly, it has been in power for only eight months and demonstrable results are understandably few. The competent team that is now looking strong on the foreign policy side took time to be assembled – and I am told by experienced eyes that they are beginning to be impressed by the team forming at the centre.
In both eras, defence spending posed huge challenges for the Labour cabinet – the need for a significant modern-day uplift to the defence budget will involve considerable challenge. But this is not new, and for the immediate postwar government it was even more acute. On 13 August 1945, the world's greatest economist John Maynard Keynes warned Dalton, the incoming Labour chancellor, 'without exaggeration', of the likelihood of a 'financial Dunkirk'. Britain had gone all in during the Second World War, becoming effectively bankrupt around 1942 and dependent on US aid, which was abruptly cut off when the war ended.
Though an economic humiliation on the level of the 1940 evacuation was immediately avoided, both the 'convertibility crisis' of 1947 and the abject devaluation of the pound from $4.03 to $2.80 in 1949 were evidence of enduring weakness. It was said that the UK's reserves were so depleted, not least because we were also feeding our zone of German occupation, that in the late 1940s, we were on occasion only six weeks away from famine.
Moreover, any hopes that victory in Europe and Japan would lead to a peace dividend were dashed when, a week before Keynes's warning, the first nuclear weapon was dropped on Hiroshima, leading to a new arms race and the start of the Cold War. Attlee and Bevin responded in part by facilitating the creation of Nato in order to keep 'the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down' – so similar to today except for the need for the Germans to step up.
When war broke out on the Korean peninsula in 1950, which many thought the first skirmishes of the third world war, Attlee ordered a 50 per cent increase in the defence budget. This last point in particular had a long-lasting coda as controlling public spending across the board led to the imposition of spectacle and denture charges in chancellor Hugh Gaitskell's 1951 Budget, which resulted in Bevan's resignation from the cabinet and heralded a decade-long power struggle at the top of Labour. Food for thought for Starmer and his own chancellor Rachel Reeves as they cut the welfare budget.
A last point is that both prime ministers won big general election victories: Starmer's majority of 174 is the second largest of the modern era, with Attlee's 1945 victory of 146 the fourth biggest. With the British electoral system being what it is, and the currently divided opposition, it is almost inconceivable that Labour will not form the next government. But though Attlee did not lose the 1950 election, it was a close-run thing, and he felt that the 1945 mandate had evaporated, leading him to call another election in 1951 which he narrowly lost. More for Starmer to contemplate.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
11 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Britain facing pension poverty 'time bomb' as Rachel Reeves' tax grab helps crater retirement savings by 20 per cent in six months
Britain is facing a pension poverty 'time bomb' after Rachel Reeves ' punishing tax grab helped plunge retirement savings by 20 per cent in six months. Survey figures suggest Britons may have been reducing their pension contributions since Christmas as the economy reacted to Labour's new tax regime. The Chancellor's national insurance hike has been partly blamed for high inflation this year, raising the cost of goods and services. Critics said last night the increased cost of living is 'squeezing' households and preventing people from putting money away for their retirement. As a result, the average monthly pension contribution has slumped to £53.40 this month from £59.10 in April and £65.10 in December. This is the first time in two years contributions have dropped for six months in a row, according to data from the House Money Index compiled by price comparison website MoneySuperMarket. At the same time, average household spending on bills and other outgoings surged by 12 per cent to £1,564 per month. The data showed the average Brit is now shelling out £52.14 per day on essentials, up from £46.40 in December. Kara Gammell, personal finance expert at MoneySuperMarket, said: 'People are reducing their private and workplace pension contributions, perhaps to help offset rising costs and stretched household finances.' Last night, Helen Whately MP, shadow pensions secretary, said: 'Britain is facing a pension poverty time bomb of Labour's making. 'By squeezing the public with more taxes and higher bills, people are being forced to make terrible choices – choices we won't see the full consequence of for years. 'The Conservatives will always stand on the side of the makers – those who work hard, do the right thing, and want to get on in life. 'And so we will hold Labour to account for the economic mess they are making.' John O'Connell, chief executive at the TaxPayers' Alliance said: 'Sky-high taxes and soaring living costs mean hard-pressed households are dipping into their retirement savings just to stay afloat.' This month, the Office for National Statistics said UK inflation jumped higher than economists had expected to 3.6 per cent in June, up from 3.4 per cent in May. It marked the steepest increase since January 2024, with critics blaming Mrs Reeves' 'job tax'. Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall said the Government was reviving New Labour's Pensions Commission to help people save more. She said: 'People deserve to know they will have a decent income in retirement – with all the security, dignity and freedom that brings. 'But the truth is, that is not the reality facing many people, especially if you're low paid, or self-employed.
Scottish Sun
40 minutes ago
- Scottish Sun
Iraqi businessman granted asylum in UK ‘led billion-dollar oil smuggling plot to help fund Iran's terror state'
Trucks full of cash made from the scheme have allegedly been sent to Iran to finance the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps TERROR PLOT Iraqi businessman granted asylum in UK 'led billion-dollar oil smuggling plot to help fund Iran's terror state' Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) AN IRAQI businessman granted asylum in the UK has been accused of running a billion dollar oil smuggling plot to finance global terrorism and domestic tyranny by Iran. The Trump administration claims Salim Ahmed Said, 47, has been running a network of firms passing off Iranian oil as a product of Iraq to avoid sanctions for at least five years. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up Trucks full of cash made from the scheme have allegedly been sent to Iran to finance the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Iraqi Kurd Said became a British citizen after seeking refuge from the Saddam Hussein regime in the UK in the early 2000s. He owns a £27 million hotel in Kensington, West London, and runs two British companies blacklisted by the US Treasury. Said was placed under US sanctions on July 3 but UK authorities so far do not appear to have taken action against him. The US government said that some of the money from the plot had benefited the IRGC's elite Quds Force, a designated terrorist organisation which leads Tehran's overseas operations. The Quds Force is suspected of kidnapping and assassination plots in Britain, the US and Europe and supports terror groups including Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthi movement, and Shia militias in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. US Treasury documents state: 'Salim Ahmed Said runs a network of companies that have been selling Iranian oil falsely declared as Iraqi oil since at least 2020. 'Said's companies use ship-to-ship transfers and other obfuscation techniques to hide their activities. 'Said's companies and vessels blend Iranian oil with Iraqi oil, which is then sold to Western buyers, via Iraq or the United Arab Emirates (UAE), as purely Iraqi oil using forged documentation to avoid sanctions.'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on talking in class: the writers speaking up for oracy education are right
Two years ago, Sir Keir Starmer enthused about teaching speaking skills. So schools campaigners were understandably dismayed when oracy – otherwise known as speaking and listening – did not appear in the interim report of the curriculum review for England headed by Prof Becky Francis. Peter Hyman, the former New Labour adviser who became a headteacher, has been a key figure behind the revival, over the past decade, of an idea developed in the 1960s. Steps to embed the importance of verbal communication in education have already been taken, with more than 1,000 schools working with the charity Voice 21, and a parallel project in Scotland. The hope expressed by children's authors and others last week is that its absence from the draft report was an oversight which will soon be rectified. The task before Prof Francis's commission is a daunting one, with reformers of all kinds looking to it for solutions. An evidence call attracted 7,000 responses, with the future of special educational needs provision, and a wish to reduce exams, among key issues raised. But it should be clear to the panel, and to ministers, that oral learning also matters. One reason is the rising number of children arriving in primary school with speech and language skills below the expected level. While some pupils catch up later, others need specialist help. Communication difficulties are one reason for the increase in the number of education, health and care plans (EHCPs), which set out what such support entails. The reasons for such complex changes are not yet fully understood, although the pandemic has had an impact. The challenge of artificial intelligence, in relation to university studies as well as schools, is another factor behind a renewed emphasis on talking. Given the easy availability of technological tools to aid writing, it is arguably more important than ever that people are equipped to share ideas and knowledge through speech as well. In many European countries oral examinations are far more common, in schools as well as universities, whereas in the UK 'vivas' are mostly reserved for postgraduate studies. In foreign language learning, the importance of speaking is taken for granted. But while oracy already features in the maths and science curriculum, as well as in English, it is often marginalised. The tricky task of reformers is to alter teaching practice so that more weight is placed on verbal communication, without making this yet another assessment hurdle to be cleared. For its champions, the core of oracy education is the ability to make connections. They want young people to be able to express themselves, and point out that this is a vital life skill – for example, in job interviews and the kinds of public‑facing work that seem least likely to be taken over by machines – for which school should prepare them. Big gaps in confidence about public speaking have long been recognised among the most glaring social inequalities. This doesn't mean that everyone should aspire to be a debating champion. Different accents, personalities and ways of relating should be valued, not ironed out. But if our schools are to keep pace with our frenetically changing world, it is surely right that they should maximise the facility for language, which is part of what makes us human.
