I can't be the only one who suspects that Sir Keir may be an example of high-functioning autism. Some would say 'suffers from' but it is we who bear the consequences when someone in high authority is not 'neurotypical.'
There are worse flaws: think of narcissistic psychopaths or messianic dreamers - have we not had such governing us before? Then again, what normal person wants to have - or could attain - the top job?
Children who are 'on the spectrum' of autism have difficulties in social communication - not just with words but in their facial expressions and body language. They may not understand others' minds or grasp underlying meanings in what is said to them. They are instinctively sensed as different by their fellows, who with the cruelty of the conformist young will tend to shun or bully them.
They do have emotions - often they get on well with animals, who are not so tricky. But for them human social intercourse can be like a tourist trying to speak Greek and their rhythm of responses is halting. As a result they can be misunderstood as impassive, unfeeling. Dan Hodges in the MoS reports a senior government official as saying Starmer is 'a very strange man. There's no empathy there. You try to talk him through the implications of what he's proposing and he goes blank.'
Asperger's types can be very intelligent but faced with a largely social world that is unpredictable and sometimes frightening or painful they may turn to a model that they can understand and control; not just computer games but - if they have sufficient power - grand schemes with niches for everyone else. In reality the model is bound to be inadequate and the Aspie will be intolerant of 'square pegs,' as Adam Smith noted in 1759:
'The man of system… is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it.'
The rigid thinker fears that dissent threatens his perfect structure, which may break down and explode like the organisations of would-be world masters in Bond films. If challenged he will double down on his carefully planned mission, which would work without a hitch if only everybody did exactly as they were told.
Does this explain Starmer's insistence that despite strong criticisms of his hapless Foreign Secretary and Chancellor they would stay in post until the next General Election? Or his refusal to budge on the obviously calamitous inheritance tax changes for farmers?
Sir Keir's project is enormous radical change and is a continuation of the Blairite programme for a constitutional structure that will permanently exclude the 'forces of conservatism' - represented by great numbers of people, perhaps the majority if the Brexit referendum is an indication. Great and lasting conflict is therefore built into this machine.
The devolution plan was designed for him by another notorious micro-manager, Gordon Brown, whose own limited tolerance for dissent was illustrated by the 'bigoted woman' episode, though at least he didn't jail her.
It will fail.
One reason is the hubris of imposing a mission statement on us all: 'The purpose of the New Britain should be grounded in the shared values and aspirations that unite the people across our country.' There is no such unity and the attempt to impose it will be disastrous. If our political class knew any history they would see how the nation was repeatedly torn apart by attempts to foist on it various forms and structures of the Christian religion, or of kingly governance. Since then we have witnessed the results of Marxism and vengeful ethno-nationalism elsewhere.
Our flexible and evolving liberal democracy is not an ideology but a method. If it works properly it allows everyone a voice and ideas to compete without bloodshed.
Because it does not work properly - because the voting system is so skewed; because the planned scheme of regional governments threatens a proliferation of petty fiefdoms as already exemplified in Scotland and London; because as Mr Vance told Europe 'you're running in fear of your own voters'; because the country continues to import potential dangers and further drains on our resources while protestors are squashed - a future civil war in Britain is not unthinkable.
According to David Betz, a professor of war studies at King's College London, it is already inevitable and could occur within the next five years. He thinks we should now concentrate on mitigating the effects - protecting cultural artefacts, developing regional seats of government (but see above comment on devolution), reviewing the security of energy support systems, nuclear weapons etc against internal threat.
We have to hope he and Elon Musk are wrong.
But it will need someone in charge who is not afraid of change; of changing his mind.
