Sir Keir Starmer must take tough decisions on personnel and policy

Recently I wrote that Boris Johnson is in a strong position politically, notwithstanding all his ms-steps on Covid-19. This was based on British success on the vaccine, and that, for most people, Brexit is not proving to be a disaster. This now seems to be accepted political wisdom. I didn’t talk about another reason he is in a strong position: the disarray of the opposition parties in his English heartlands.

This weekend’s papers are full of despair over Labour’s new leader, Sir Keir Starmer; his honeymoon is well and truly over. It is even worse for the Lib Dem leader, Sir Ed Davey, who never had a honeymoon. Journalists want to see opposition led by charismatic leaders, and neither fit the bill. But I have a huge respect for both men: the main problem with each of them is the weakness their parties.

Ever since the 2010 General Election, Labour have been chasing a chimera: the “progressive majority”. This is the idea that most voters do not want to see a Conservative government. At first the idea was used to push cooperation between Labour and the Lib Dems. But under Ed Miliband, who took over in 2010, the idea was that Labour should harness this majority on its own, by crushing the Lib Dems and Greens; there was no need to chase marginal Conservative voters and so compromise “progressive” values. This strategy was carried forward by his successor, Jeremy Corbyn. They both managed to crush the Lib Dems and Greens, but this turned out to help the Conservatives more than their own party.

Sir Keir now accepts that he has to hone his party’s appeal to conservative voters. But after a decade of the party polishing its “progressive” credentials, it is far from clear that he is taking his party with him, or that he knows how to build the trust of these voters. His early strategy was to show that he is more competent and a stronger leader than the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson. He may have succeeded, but it clearly isn’t enough. The commonplace complaints are that he lacks vision, and that his team is weak. Of these criticisms, the second is probably the most important for now. None of his front-bench colleagues has made much impression, either because they aren’t really up to it, or because Sir Keir isn’t giving them enough scope. The Conservatives have their weakest front bench for some time, but even they are doing better than Labour. They have Rishi Sunak, Michael Gove and even the Health Secretary Matt Hancock is showing some grit. Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, seems to be completely useless to professional types like me, but it would be dangerous to underestimate her appeal to conservative voters.

Sir Keir needs to take some decisive action on his team. But he also needs to set out some kind of a story on policy. Many are urging him to adopt reform to the British constitution (with an eye on the Scots), but this looks like a dead letter to me. The English grumble about this, but have no real appetite for change. Whatever he does has to be both conservative and painful. The pain – by which I mean upsetting a lot of his activists – is necessary, otherwise the public will not believe that anything has changed. The model for this is the way Tony Blair engineered a fight over Clause 4 to the Labour constitution in the 1990s. Accepting Brexit is not enough. A tough stand on immigration and jobs for working class Britons looks like one promising angle. He will probably have to shadow Tory policy on tax and spend too even if they privately think it’s nonsense. Complaints about “austerity” will have to be struct from the Labour lexicon.

What of the Lib Dems? Going into coalition with the Conservatives in 2010 exposed fatal weakness in the party’s core support, and both the other parties took advantage (roughly speaking, Labour took the votes and the Tories took the parliamentary seats). They then went all out to stop Brexit, which brought about a revival, but failure leaves them bereft. Many of their former supporters see no compelling reason to support the party rather than Sir Keir’s Labour. Alas the party will have to learn patience. They will only advance on the national scene if the other parties give them the space. If Labour follows my advice and takes a sharp turn to the right, something like the gap that the Lib Dems exploited in the 2000s will open up. Until they do, the party has to concentrate on local government to secure its political base.

There is an obvious further point to make. If both parties are weak, then it makes sense for them to work together. A formal pact is almost certainly a bad idea, but some kind of informal carve-up of seats (as per the 1997 general election) may have something going for it. If Labour adopt a more conservative policy stance, and the Lib Dems present themselves as a more progressive junior partner, they may just be able to get the best of both worlds. The Greens might be brought in to try and scoop up hard left votes.

But if Sir Keir continues to dodge tough questions on personnel and policy, he will do enough to keep the Lib Dems and Greens on the floor, but will be quite unable to challenge the Conservatives for power. Mr Johnson has some big difficulties ahead, not least Scotland and Northern Ireland, but England looks his for now.

6 thoughts on “Sir Keir Starmer must take tough decisions on personnel and policy”

  1. “some kind of informal carve-up of seats”

    Can Labour activists be trusted to abide by any such arrangement? Is Starmer sufficiently in control to push such an arrangement through?

    1. There will be a couple of years to beat them into submission. But the Lib Dems will only enjoy success where Labour is weak. But that is a lot of places.

  2. What about the possibility of a hung Parliament after the next Election? – with Starmer winning back ‘Red Wall’ seats through socially conservative policies and a failure of Johnson to deliver on ‘levelling up’, and the Lib Dems benefitting from this socially conservative stance to win a few more seats in progressive places including London?

    1. I think that is the best possibility of beating the Conservatives. But Labour and Lib Dems will not just have to win more seats than the Tories, but the Tories and SNP combined, which is a tough ask. There is the possibility of some kind of grand bargain between Labour and the SNP (which the Lib Dems would probably have to stay clear of) – it is hard to predict the course of Scottish politics at the moment.

  3. A new study of children – https://theconversation.com/narcissistic-leaders-even-children-fall-for-their-superficial-charms-154113?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20February%207%202021%20-%201856018093&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20February%207%202021%20-%201856018093+CID_8e4166ac19f2d93e3d8eb2be1d727520&utm_source=campaign_monitor_uk&utm_term=to%20choose%20the%20narcissists%20in%20their%20midsts – suggests that narcissists are good at being chosen as leaders but not particularly good at leadership once chosen. In the days before radio and television, this didn’t matter much in the world of politics but nowadays it does. Both Keir Starmer and Ed Davy are perhaps at a disadvantage by not being narcissists.

    This poses a big challenge to those of us who don’t want to be governed by Trumps and Boris Johnsons. I think you have found part of the answer here but I think we need to find other wheezes as well to counter the lure of the narcissist.

    1. If humanity hasn’t learned by 2021 it never will. I did read somewhere that people alternated between charismatic and uncharismatic leaders (from Blair to Brown, Thatcher to Major, etc). Mind you there’s a difference between charisma and narcissism. Charisma is usually pretty dangerous, though.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Fill in the missing number to show you are not a robot... * Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.