Starmer, Starmer, Starmer

As the UK general election enters the endgame, a few quick thoughts on the overwhelmingly-probable next Prime Minister and his New-New-Labour party.

First, much has been made of the so-called U-turns despite Labour not being in actual power yet. I set this out here so I won't go through it again, but I do want to add just how unclear some of the positions are, yet how feverently people insist on believing them as being one thing or another. For example, back in April the Financial Times reported how Gordon Brown had been actively working with Keir Starmer on reorganising the Cabinet, only for Sky News to report that Brown hated the new idea. The two reports were so at odds it was hard to know what to think; one had Brown as being instrumental to the process, the other only as a reactionary commentator.

(If anyone really wants me to I will try and dig up the exact links, but this is irksome)

It's the same with some of the current Labour policies. And to be fair, some of the missteps have been of Labour's own making. Putting down a solid number of £28 billion per year for investment in green jobs, stating in no uncertain terms that the House of Lords would be replaced in the first term and then appearing to row back on this... the problem is not the change of policies, but the marketing around them. It's fine to realise you need to change direction, the problem is how confidently you express that you can deliver them initially. On the other hand, people hate politicians being non-committal, so to quite a large degree, this is a no-win situation.

Yet the divide between Labour and the Tories is sharp in the extreme. My alignment with the parties based purely on their policies is 89% Labour, 36% Tory. So why people are making mountains out of molehills out of every Labour move to appeal to the centre / centre-right... I don't know. Allusion to the Nazis... FFS ! This kind of ultra-cynicism will be the death of us; truly, the perfect is the bitterest enemy of the good. I mean, it's completely fine to say, "I don't agree with this particular policy", but this inference that there's some kind of lurch to the right (let alone to appeasing racists !) is to literally fall off a slippery slope. There just doesn't exist anywhere near the level of clarity needed to make that assertion. A report one day is routinely contradicted by another the next, almost always because the journalists read far too deeply into the most marginal of evidence.

As I see it, the political calculus here is complicated. Labour could go all-in ideological, fire up their base, go for a high turnout... but this risks losing the centrists, and unifying the right against them. Or, as they've chosen, they go for an uninspiring (with caveats I'll return to) but unthreatening approach that lets the right tear itself to bits. Turnout might be lower but the right goes into free-fall and meltdown at the same time. 

The evidence that this is the correct approach appears obvious. They tried the hardline tactic under Corbyn and collapsed, whereas the safely-safely approach appears to be reaping a bountiful harvest. Yes, they probably could be a bit more left, but FPTP delivers highly non-linear results, so why give the right any ammunition ? Far better, as Zelensky did in his own election campaign, to say absolutely bugger-all about anything controversial, especially culture wars. The downside is that I guess people read in whatever they want to read about whatever breadcrumb of information does happen to issue forth. Much is made of "they haven't ruled out X" even when they've said nothing much at all about X.

Nazi analogies though. Srsly. That takes some nerve.

Politics, unfortunately, is an art not a science, and more unfortunately still requires a degree of... wait for it... faith. There's no getting around this : you need ideology for the process to work. 

Let me explain with an example. Starmer did himself no favours at all by saying he was certain Labour would lose the 2019 election, despite having been involved with the manifesto and saying that Corbyn would make a great Prime Minister. The problem is that this exposes the naked lie of political reality, that sometimes you have to say things you don't believe. There was no way at all he could have been in Corbyn's shadow cabinet and not sung his praises, even though it was very clear at the time they disagreed strongly on Brexit. And equally, he can hardly turn around now and say, "I didn't really believe it at the time". 

The act of faith required is that politics and policies can be differentiated. That politicians will make rhetorical claims to advance their own interests (as they must), but that actual policies will be formulated and enacted in accordance with the evidence. That if specific details change (again, as they usually must), then the overall direction of travel remains broadly similar. 

While Starmer was foolish to bring up the 2019 election, journalists are also being extremely silly in pretending that there aren't some areas where politicians literally cannot avoid lying. But lies about what you plan to do in office and lies about what you think of your colleagues are scarcely the same thing, as I suspect we've all found out at some point or other.

The idea that Labour are a sort of "Tory Lite" is nevertheless palpable nonsense. Since 2019 we've had them call for a federal system of government, greatly expanded powers for local councils (radical de-centrism), replacing the Lords with a Council of Nations, nationalisation of rail and energy, enormous investment into the green sector, calls for greater protection of workers, a commitment (albeit a weak one) to look into proportional representation, and recently a similar consideration for lowering the voting age. Now I'm somewhat against that last one personally, but nothing seems like a starker contrast : the Tories want young people to do national service and make them work for free, while Labour would prefer to give them greater choices.

Tory Lite, my foot. Sod off.

Not all of these proposals have made it thus far. I'm not sure what happened to the call for federalisation or what's going on with the Lords (I would rather they reformed it than replaced it). But nationalisation of rail and energy are very much alive and kicking (we can only hope water will go the same way), as is a commitment to net zero by 2030 (the specific investment sum being a distraction). Along with a program of house-building and increases in hospital and dental appointments, this might not be a revolutionary proposal, but it certainly seems like a dramatic one nonetheless. Consider also that Labour are accused by some of being too boring and under-ambitious and by others of aiming for the unachievable, and this strongly suggests they've got the balance right.

And this brings me back to those caveats about the campaign being uninspiring. I rather disagree. In terms of actual policies, I concede the point. I'd rather promises of a four-day work-week, UBI, re-joining the EU, cracking down on the big banks rather than supporting them, wealth taxes, and a commitment to send Nigel Garbage to Rwanda. But I also accept that this wouldn't get them into power, and without power, all the ideals in the world won't do you a whit of good. 

Moreover, there's something about the political campaign I do find genuinely inspiring, something that Starmer did almost immediately : agreeing with the government when necessary. Labour didn't oppose lockdowns, it even wanted to go further. At a stroke, the whole "you're just opposing us because you're the Opposition" mentality died; credibility skyrockets when you're seen to genuinely disagree and not just because you're fulfilling a perfunctory role. Quite honestly I've been waiting all my adult life to see politics done like this; if imperfectly, then at least with a measure of good sense.

This has gone on longer than I intended but I'd like to direct your attention to three long-piece interviews with Starmer : one from the Sunday Times, one from the Financial Times, and one from the Guardian. They're all character pieces, but a few things might be of note :

• He's actually funny. All three interviews say this, with some of his closet aides not understanding his political persona or why he can't be himself in front of the cameras. 
• He's not introspective and doesn't give a damn about some of the more personal stuff – no phobias, no favourite novel. He really is very grey and bland in that sense.
• He loves football and beer, but doesn't see any need to connect this with politics. He genuinely sees politics as a time to be serious, not for small-talk and jokes. 
• He's extremely competitive, but wants respect from colleagues but not deference. He's extremely focused on winning power, and will ruthlessly cut down colleagues and policies alike in pursuit of this. As perhaps he should, given Labour's longer track record of dismal electoral failure. He certainly understands a basic lesson of British politics : win the centre, win the game. And equally importantly, be seen to be winning the centre.

Starmer may in some ways be incredibly boring as a politician, but largely this is to the good : he isn't proposing bridges over munitions dumps or any of the other fantasy politics of the Johnson era. He isn't necessarily conventional either, just constrained by circumstance. When Biden was elected I was wondering what "radical centrism" would look like for the UK : in just under a fortnight, barring a truly monumental upset, we'll begin to find out.

And to those who are still skeptical, that's okay. But look me in the eye and tell me Labour are no better than the Tories. Go on, I dare you. 

This mood among some that no change is either possible or desirable without an outright revolution... to my mind, this kind of fantasy "both sidesism" deserves an ugly death. Actual change, so long as overall positive, is worth any amount of impossibly utopian dreams of a magical wonderland that has no chance whatever of being realised.