Don't you dare bloody screw this up, Keir

So absolutely everyone is under lockdown again, and not before time. This means Keir Starmer, who called for this weeks ago (a day after it was revealed as official scientific advice to the government some weeks previously) is fully entitled to a massive, "I frickin' TOLD you so !". But he almost certainly won't do that, because he's just too honourable : rubbing people's noses in the dirt isn't really his style. I'll leave lockdowns for a future post; right now it's high time to venture some thoughts on my latest political would-be hero. 

I've been following the antics of Starmer with sufficient diligence that he should probably be a little worried. I'm very concerned and conscious of the last time I experienced the disappointment of political impotence, namely in the weirdy-beardy shape of Jeremy Corbyn. I really thought we might get someone truly radical, moral, honourable and inspirational. I bought in to the Corbyn hype for some time, only to be brutally disappointed to find out he's just another bloody cult leader*. But let's not dwell. I'm reading the report on the anti-Semitism investigation in full, so that will be another future post.

* You look me in the face and tell me that singing "oooh, Jeremy Corbyn" isn't a little but culty. Go on, I dare you.

Such a bitter disappointment has the paradoxical effect of making me yearn all the more strongly for a true political hero while simultaneously making me more skeptical that they exist. Of course, I know full well that there are no true heroes, but that doesn't stop me wanting one. I can't honestly tell you which of these contradictory effects is stronger.

Let me lead with the most negative thing I can find to say about Starmer : he's a schemer*. He's planned his rise to power very carefully. He's courted all sides of the political spectrum of the Labour Party and largely won them over. He'll say what he needs to say to win power. There's more than a little opportunism, even if justified on fine moral grounds, about then suspending his hard-left former colleagues. Even if we accept that those suspensions are justified (and I suspect that they are), he still worked with them previously. He somehow managed to work alongside and under people whose ethical standards are now in apparent conflict with his own. He could have left, but chose to stay.

* "Schemer Starmer" rolls off the tongue very nicely, if you like Trumpian nicknames.

But... what good would it do to leave ? Others did, and where are they now ? Change UK lasted all of five minutes and make the political impotence of Corbyn look like a teenager with an overdose of viagra. If you're actually serious about enacting political change, you can't flee into the political wilderness. You can't magic up a new political party and start a revolution - you'll make the moral high ground into nothing more than inconvenient hill to die on. So you have to stay. If that means serving the snakes, so be it. Both choices are morally bad.

This is an apologist view, of course, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate it - better, indeed, to try and win people round than continuously fight everyone you disagree with. It takes an obvious leaf out of Tony Blair's playbook. And whatever his moral views might be, Starmer is keen to learn other lessons from Blair, some of which I recorded back in in February. How does Starmer measure up on those ?

Not having the Labour Party be a campaign group : instead, Starmer is extremely clear that the priority is to actually win power. There's no point being in continual opposition -  a political party has a moral duty to try and see its policies enacted, not just to insult the current government. Activism is fun but achieves absolutely bugger all by itself. Starmer has emphasised this repeatedly.

Meeting people where they are : i..e. be prepared to win over Tory voters, not think of the Tories as so awful that you wouldn't want to ever be associated with them. Starmer's been given an easy opportunity here to win back the voters who reluctantly turned Tory last time because they couldn't vote for Corbyn. His approach to a constructive opposition suggests he might also be willing to take this further and not deliberately alienate Tories for being Tories, which is what political activists usually delight in. Starmer is also particularly astute at quoting other expert sources (including Tory MPs), rather than relying on manufacturing his own points - thus minimising the tribalistic element inherent in the system.

Frankly, I freakin' love this. Alistair Campbell isn't keen on it, but just because it's a different style than attacking the enemy at every turn doesn't mean it won't work. In Campbell's day, the Tories were still seen as unpleasant but competent, whereas currently the competency is largely a farce. Attacking them only when they get things wrong (which is becoming ever-more frequent) makes those attacks look a lot more credible, while avoiding having to piss off potential converts. More than that, it's the right thing to do : co-operate to find the best decision, not get angry for the sake of it. It's how Parliament should work all the damn time.

I could never do this myself, mind you. I've concluded that the current Tory leadership are all a bunch of corrupt, self-serving, bloody nutters. I hate them.

Not fighting a culture war : we can't say much about this so far, as Starmer's biggest weakness is his lack of clear policy (still understandable at this early stage). But he's been rightly keen to avoid re-opening Brexit, of which he was a firm opponent. Again as Blair predicted, it looks likely that our exit from the EU won't be a short one. Trying to defend an argument already lost would be political suicide (which of course does not rule out a closer alignment with the EU in the future).

Leadership sometimes means saying no to your own supporters : well, he's clearly done that.

Party membership is a mixed bag : excluding anti-semites would seem to be a thoroughly good start; you do need a broad church, but not so broad it includes racists. It remains to be seen how politically united the party can become, but so far the suspension of Corbyn has provoked remarkably little backlash or even any sound and fury. The timing - moments before BoJo announced another massive u-turn - couldn't have been better.

Assessing support for individual policies is a failure : because people judge them in aggregate, not individually. Starmer would seem to have taken this lesson to heart. Of course, we have little idea what his policies would actually be, so...

Labour needs to be radical : he's promised a policy manifesto "unlike anything you've seen before", but of course we've no way of judging this yet.

On that last point there's some strong grounds for hope that Starmer's moral principles are not as weak as those of Blair; learning political theory from a past master does not mean a shared morality. Starmer's term as Director of the Crown Prosecution Service, leading cases for human rights and prosecuting terrorists, certainly lies strongly in his favour.

Against this, it's hard to envisage Starmer saying anything really radical. This, for now, is a major advantage : he's Mr Sensible. He's dull. And unlike Gordon Brown (or Theresa May), he's not made the fatal mistake of trying to be something he's not. Dull ? Sure ! He owns his dullness. And good lord, in these troubled times, political excitement is the very last thing we need (anyone saying that this is a disadvantage of some kind had best look at the polls). He isn't trying to define himself by other leaders either. The problem is we have absolutely no idea what Starmerism, when it eventually emerges, will look like.

So far I like Starmer a lot. He's not perfect - he does occasionally get his facts wrong, and he does sometimes give unconvincing non-answers in interviews. But then, perfection is not a realistic standard to expect in an imperfect world. What I've been really impressed with is his willingness to admit mistakes and apologise (see his LBC appearances) without any associated bullshit excuses, his agreement with the government on the occasions it gets things right, his straight-talking, fact-driven approach bereft of rhetorical bluster, and the fact he bought his terminally ill mother a donkey sanctuary. Best of all, perhaps, is his emphasis on tackling structural inequalities rather than blaming it all on individuals. He understands organisations and just doesn't moralise about making bad choices.

He's far more convincing than any leader since Blair. And indeed, the only political leader to have higher opinion ratings at this point in their leadership was Blair himself.

Could he be posed to stage one the greatest political comebacks in history ? I won't make a prediction. They say he's got a mountain to climb, and they're right. Boris Johnson is already on the top of the mountain but he's lost all his equipment, sprained his ankle and is stumbling around ever more incoherently trying to find a compass. Starmer may be at the bottom, but he's got all the right gear, an extremely accurate map, and a team who aren't a bunch of bigoted idiots. Let's see how this turns out.