Starmer party is too ‘timid’ to challenge far-right claims or offer alternatives. Why?

Starmer and Sunak: perhaps the reason there’s little difference between them and their parties is that they are chasing sponsorship from big business for their own personal gain, rather than doing what the public pays them to do – which is find solutions to the problems being created by the firms they are courting.

Economist Richard Murphy has published a column highlighting concerns that Keir Starmer’s STP (Substitute Tory Party – formerly Labour) is too “timid” to challenge right-wing claims about immigration, climate change or anything else, or to articulate an alternative vision.

He suggests three reasons for this:

Is it that they spent too much time watching Top Gear over the years and now live in fear of that culture?

Could it be that they have a deep-seated insecurity when it comes to standing up to the interests of big business when the latter so clearly want what the country does not?

Or is that they simply do not do ideology-based politics and so go where the money is, with money filling the vacuum where their convictions should be?

It comes down to the same thing. Starmer has decided to do what the Tories always do: chase the cash that comes from big corporate sponsorship for his own personal gain.

The national interest can go hang, as far as he is concerned.

I’m willing to bet we’ll find evidence of this if we have a look around. Or have you found some already?

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at

5) Join the uPopulus group at

6) Join the MeWe page at

7) Feel free to comment!

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:


4 thoughts on “Starmer party is too ‘timid’ to challenge far-right claims or offer alternatives. Why?

  1. Graham Poulloin

    It’s none of the three alternatives. I’m wondering if there’s subtle IEA influence with both Starmer and especially Reeves. The IEA are so clever that they, especially Reeves may not even know they are IEA ‘plants’. One of the IEA’s original goals was to get rid of the labour party. That’s not happened so infiltrate it. They do this by supporting clever Oxford undergraduates, especially those from modest backgrounds. Truss is the perfect example, take Truss as the base and look for similar…

    1. Martyn Meacham

      Because Starmer and his greedy, self serving scum on the front bench and the Labour, NEC only serve themselves, and those that bribe them enough…They have no intention of serving us, the people !

    2. Julia

      Time and time again I am accused of being a ‘conspiracy theorist’ when I mention stuff like this, but nothing that Starmer has done from the very day of his election leads me to think he has interest in becoming PM and is indeed there to wreck the Labour Party or at least remove the slightest threat to the status quo. I find his so called ‘socialist background’ extremely dubious, and his apparent lack of political ‘nous’ makes him ideal for the task.

  2. terry Scales

    Dear Terry,
    This is very interesting and I am in agreement with many of your points. I’m afraid Tax Justice UK are focussed on campaigning to provide the political space to get the tax reforms proposed by economists and academic experts into practice. I’m afraid I don’t think I would be best placed to answer your questions. However I wish you luck in finding answers – perhaps your local University could advise. Or the Labour Party (joke….it is verboten to discuss economics TS) maybe they have economic discussion groups.

    Best wishes,

    Rachael Henry
    Head of Advocacy and Policy
    Tax Justice UK

    Hi Richard Murphy,
    Just a thought from a longtime supporter….. I need advice.
    Who within Tax Justice UK understands the economics of local currencies and their advantages. And or how printing money does not cause inflation if managed with a long term fiscal policy controlling money supply based on taxation on capital gains or a wealth tax based on dividends going abroad.
    The public needs to have question and answer sessions with economic advisers like Tax Justice UK.
    Most of the electorate are not clued up on changing approaches to economics particularly related to socialist economics since we have been living through 15 years of extreme capitalist thinking of free trade and reduced role of the State thanks to Milton Friedman and the austerity brigade which retaisn the power with the financial markets.
    The public needs to understand how a government like the US can print money (by issuing 30 year bonds) to spend on investing in long term capital assets without causing inflation…….
    If we unfortunately continue with the current City financial borrowing model ….. Treasury short term bonds…. Tony Blair’s expensive PFIs, quantitative easing, and now Hunt’s additional incentives to major Pension funds to take increased risks to invest in start up and financial services etc.
    The current system of financing investment by privatisation has still made the Government in debted to the investors who have criminally borrowed excessively to bankcrupt Companies. Just like the Water Companies.
    However to have 30 year re payment terms like US President Biden is promoting is like saying that there are no clear repayment return on the bonds unless they have a fixed rate for the duration.
    Who can predict that far ahead as what a return will be valued at.
    The trillions of dollars created by the US Treasury to re build infra structure is for physical economic structural growth from which a Country makes economic value through growth is really not the cause of inflation if managed with an appropriate monetary policy.
    By creating an investment currency, or like the agriculture green pound, a local currency for a specific purpose supported by regulations on investment usage linked to share purchasing with taxation controls. A UK Investment pound could be introduced without need of recourse to the City.
    Similar to the Green Pound as part of the EU CAP policy in the 1960s, if the Government introduced a UK Investment Pound money Fund at an agreed value to buy shares in the development and improvement of infra structure like the recently privatised service industries ( to a maximum of say 40% of the Companies….thereby becoming the single largest shareholder), not borrowing this new money from the City as guilt bonds, giving the Companies the opportunity to pay off criminal debts that the Companies have accrued since they were privatised, but to become major economic partners.
    In addition as part of a monetary policy we need to establish a new higher level of capital gains tax as a wealth tax on excess profits and on all overseas investors with the incentive of a lower rate for UK investors.
    Instead of re-nationalising, the State will be the major shareholder receiving dividends as an income and can control CEO salaries and bonuses and investment policies etc. ……Ironically it would also give private investors assurance as the State is unlikely to allow the these part State owned Companies to go bust.
    Similarly all start up new tech Companies approved of as part of an Industrial strategy (there was a NESTA fund) as well as essential currently privately owned industries like steel and pharma supplying the NHS requiring and receiving State support or contracts for development will only receive Public funding in return for State shares.
    It is our tax money and we need an annual return on profits….not just tax income on private wealth.
    Since this new money is for long term development with State shareholding as collatoral, then it is capital investment funding…… with all long term capital assets and industrial development money the economy will grow slowly at the speed of the capital schemes becoming profitable…..that is clearly asset growth and expanding the economy slowly and the wealth of the Nation…….
    Borrowing money from the Financial sector as is done now is short term and inflationary as it plays to financier driven market forces.
    With the State taking and investing to no more than 40% of any Company as its economic strategy we will see growth and the State will receives dividends from its share investment in the new capital assets…..
    France would seem to have been doing this throughout the period of the EEC and EU
    If I am economically wrong please advise me…..

    Terry Scales
    retired and disolutioned
    Mumbles Branch Labour Party Chairman
    Gower constituency.

Comments are closed.