You should never underestimate someone who was the only one of four working class children to pass the eleven plus and go to university and then rise to the top of the law profession. Steely true grit. Thanks for voicing my thoughts so succinctly!
Great piece (and yes, as an ex-Mumsnet staffer, can confirm politicians and their teams are usually extremely careful about what they say about single sex spaces when they appear on the site - very few of them arrive unprepared with a line to take).
I think your point about needing to have some arguments out loud is really critical though. I worry Starmer is too much of a lawyer in his bones - he can make an elegant case but he can’t do a stump speech. I don’t feel I have any strong sense of what he ^believes^, just the things he is prepared to advocate for. Maybe that’s enough given the smoking ruins left by the conservatives, but it’s a weakness I think.
Yes, agreed. And worst of all, I think it might feel “clever” to avoid a rammy. But sometimes you’re just storing up a problem for the future (cf Cameron on Europe).
Yeah - Europe also being a case in point for Starmer and Labour. Nobody believes Starmer believes in Brexit. I understand why politically they don’t want to say so right now but he’s ducking it, and one of the impressions that leaves (as well as tactical cunning) is slipperiness. Worse than that actually - cowardice, for the voters who care about that issue. What do you actually believe to be the right thing to do, Keir? Because sooner or later you will have to choose.
I know I’m mithering. I joined the Labour Party to vote for this guy as leader and I don’t regret it. I just suspect Streeting would have found a way to clarity by now.
What clarity? There is no EU option at present, other than marginal tweaks. That’s not because Starmer is being evasive, but because more that is not presently in the gift of any UK government. The single, only possible route to a position where there could be a debate to return, begins with healing relations with the EU, and making modest improvements. This, Starmer proposes. So he has provided total clarity on the only credible option open to him.
I don’t understand this argument. Brexit has happened. It is not in the gift of any PM to rejoin now. A gradually increasing closeness may make that possible down the line. Rekindling the divisions now is likely to delay the time that either the UK or the EU feel ready. Those wanting to fight that battle now are out of tune with those who want to avoid the bitterness of another referendum.
Superb piece and excellent analysis. I think it's a fascinating dichotomy that all too often those who care most about politics are those who least like how politics is done. But it is in the doing that Starmer is excelling.
I'm still hanging in there as a Labour MP hoping that Starmer is playing the long game, particularly on Women's rights and the whole insanity of "gender ideology".
Graham Linehan just gave a speech at the Battle of Ideas. He posits (and he is absolutely right) that the "trans issue" is the leading issue of the day. Its not simple about being "kind". The ideology is destroying freedom of speech, expression and thought.
It demands and is trying to get it written *in law* that to even question the ideology is a "hate crime". There are many threads to that ideology.
- Attack on Women (we were the front line - attack half the population, turn some of them into collaborators and other/blacken the name of the rest and you have majority of society under your control.
- Catch the children young - infiltrate the schools and get the idiot teachers to repeat the LIE that there is "no sex" that one can "change sex" that one's "gender" is immutable but at the same time flexible. Catch those who are vulnerable and teach that if they do NOT conform to a specific, narrow set of "sex based rules" for their sex (see - its relevant when that ideology wants it to be) then they are the "opposite" sex or "neither" sex and MUST HAVE DRUGS and SURGERY. "Think of the children" comes the cry"
- Change the definitions of basic and fundamental terms that our ancestors knew instinctively. Which actually means further attacks on one half of the human population by *removing* the words that describe them and what life experience they happen to be going through. Refer to them by sexual body parts and functions - thereby dehumanising and othering.
Pass their rightful words to the other more powerful half of the population. Make it a crime to complain. Literally.
- Redefine sexual orientation thereby removing at one stroke the possibility of any "sexual orientation" that is rooted in biology.
- Reject the science entirely.
Unless Starmer understands ALL the above and properly acts on it, we will find ourselves in a horrific situation (that other countries have already) whereby a person can be arrested and charged and imprisoned simply by telling the truth.
If as you say Starmer is playing a long game, he has to be clear on this topic one side or the other before the next GE.
I really not happy with the Tories but they are more likely to stop this ideology that attacks, threatens the very basis of human life and thus democracy than Labour are.
Labour is still vacillating on what a woman is - pretending its anyone who says they are. Which as we know, is men.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I believe in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and while this issue is important... there are people in foodbanks this winter for whom this must seem as remote as Mars. For me, the leading issue of the day is how Britain, one of the largest economies in the world, still has so many children living in mouldy houses, so many people afraid to switch on the heating, so many parents skipping meals so their children don't go without. That's not to say I don't think gender in law and policy is important, but I don't think we should be monomaniacal.
Children are suffering in many ways and have done under under both Labour and Conservatives,But messing with their young minds and bodies is the worst trangressive act of them all-endorsed and promoted by Western governments.
Great piece that articulates much about Starmer that has gone unnoticed (or unsaid). I think his much discussed lack of charisma may be a political asset during this phase. People have moaned about being victims of his duplicity/ruthlessness, but the public can't quite believe that someone so dull could be so calculating.
I thought it was telling that he didn't pursue music at uni because he felt he didn't have the easy natural talent of some other musical high-achievers. That's an unusual level self-knowledge and vision for anyone, especially at 18. So I can imagine he currently has a very low tolerance for Labour focusing on anything that doesn't contribute to electoral success.
Yes, I was pleasantly surprised about this. My hope is that he feels he has bought himself credibility and is going to spend it on progressive policies (which Philip Gould’s Unfinished Revolution says is how New Labour saw their 97 campaign: pledge to stick to the Tory “spending envelope” but institute different spending priorities).
Nothing here about the nhs. In Starmer’s pitch on constitutional reform and vat on fee-paying schools he’s copped out on the strikes and the nhs falling off a cliff. Starmer and Streeting only utter banalities about the nhs around the theme of ‘preventative’ approaches when we need that PLUS beds PLUS well paid doctors/nurses PLUS publicly providing our health care. That would be a vote winner. No need for all these so-called feints.
Great piece, best analysis of Starmer, strengths and potential weaknesses, I have read. And OJ knows full well he's been had, and it's beautiful to watch his reaction to it!
Wonderful, Helen. We’ve been pondering the ‘lack of passion and vision’ charge on our Northern Spin podcast. I think Starmer is both a product of his background, but also of these rather desperate times. He’s sensible enough to know that after 12 (soon to be 14) years of promises on the side of buses and lots of not getting stuff like Brexit done this country’s had quite enough of bullshitting hucksters. He can’t do the Obama Hope thing easily, but he’s also smart enough to know he shouldn’t try even if he could. Just be better, and honest.
Also particularly love the line about having OJ as an enemy being on a whiteboard of objectives.
I know what you mean about the vision question. I was talking to a labour lifer who framed it as the difference between the party being a skip or a magnet.
Great article. Straightforward principled politicians face an uphill struggle that stems from our first-past-the-post system. Parties are forced to be coalitions who, if not careful, spend most of their energies fighting each other.
Yes, there’s long been a compelling argument that labour would be happier as two parties in a formal coalition under PR than one party with a big seam down the middle under FPTP
There is a compelling argument that the UK would be happier with the big parties breaking into their factions under a PR system. Well I have believed that for 30 years.
The only problem is that we will end up with a permanent centrist coalition that will forever prevent the embracing of a truly progressive agenda. Given the alternativehiwever, it's hard to argue that isn't a price worth paying.
I rather enjoyed that, I’m a disillusioned Tory and my vote is very much up for grabs. Whilst his failure to fight the battles just quietly announcing changes might be good for party management it doesn’t give me anything to grab hold of, I guess I need to see some of these fights to jump - and a few more of the crazy Corbynistas getting shoved, but there are crazys on both sides I suppose, sadly many in seats for life.
I think it leaves open the question of what he actually believes—is he very leftwing in policy terms but also deeply tactical about the voters he needs to win? Or have his views evolved since 2015 in some profound way he hasn’t spoken about?
Thanks Helen! I sometimes wonder if people like Owen Jones have the self awareness to understand they are playing a role that is helpful to Starmer and Labour and that their personas are all a great big 4D chess political strategy. And then I remember that most people are winging it most of the time and he’s probably just a big baby that doesn’t like losing.
I feel very cheered by this Helen as this is what I've thought all along, until recently losing faith because of the trans malarky. It doesn't matter what socialist policies he might want in an ideal world, he's got to get the votes - it's the perfect being enemy of the good. Re trans issue, Keir has made some hopeful noises recently, and the tide is rapidly turning re trans ideology. I hope he'll manage to ride that tide. And Helen, working class, ethnic minority, non-uni educated people probably feel more oppressed and impatient with this ideology, its stranglehold over the intelligentsia, education and health services etc.
You should never underestimate someone who was the only one of four working class children to pass the eleven plus and go to university and then rise to the top of the law profession. Steely true grit. Thanks for voicing my thoughts so succinctly!
This is such a useful and enjoyable one-stop analysis of his leadership thusfar. And I loved the line about him being a stage magician.
Great piece (and yes, as an ex-Mumsnet staffer, can confirm politicians and their teams are usually extremely careful about what they say about single sex spaces when they appear on the site - very few of them arrive unprepared with a line to take).
I think your point about needing to have some arguments out loud is really critical though. I worry Starmer is too much of a lawyer in his bones - he can make an elegant case but he can’t do a stump speech. I don’t feel I have any strong sense of what he ^believes^, just the things he is prepared to advocate for. Maybe that’s enough given the smoking ruins left by the conservatives, but it’s a weakness I think.
Yes, agreed. And worst of all, I think it might feel “clever” to avoid a rammy. But sometimes you’re just storing up a problem for the future (cf Cameron on Europe).
Yeah - Europe also being a case in point for Starmer and Labour. Nobody believes Starmer believes in Brexit. I understand why politically they don’t want to say so right now but he’s ducking it, and one of the impressions that leaves (as well as tactical cunning) is slipperiness. Worse than that actually - cowardice, for the voters who care about that issue. What do you actually believe to be the right thing to do, Keir? Because sooner or later you will have to choose.
I know I’m mithering. I joined the Labour Party to vote for this guy as leader and I don’t regret it. I just suspect Streeting would have found a way to clarity by now.
What clarity? There is no EU option at present, other than marginal tweaks. That’s not because Starmer is being evasive, but because more that is not presently in the gift of any UK government. The single, only possible route to a position where there could be a debate to return, begins with healing relations with the EU, and making modest improvements. This, Starmer proposes. So he has provided total clarity on the only credible option open to him.
I don’t understand this argument. Brexit has happened. It is not in the gift of any PM to rejoin now. A gradually increasing closeness may make that possible down the line. Rekindling the divisions now is likely to delay the time that either the UK or the EU feel ready. Those wanting to fight that battle now are out of tune with those who want to avoid the bitterness of another referendum.
Superb piece and excellent analysis. I think it's a fascinating dichotomy that all too often those who care most about politics are those who least like how politics is done. But it is in the doing that Starmer is excelling.
I'm still hanging in there as a Labour MP hoping that Starmer is playing the long game, particularly on Women's rights and the whole insanity of "gender ideology".
Graham Linehan just gave a speech at the Battle of Ideas. He posits (and he is absolutely right) that the "trans issue" is the leading issue of the day. Its not simple about being "kind". The ideology is destroying freedom of speech, expression and thought.
It demands and is trying to get it written *in law* that to even question the ideology is a "hate crime". There are many threads to that ideology.
- Attack on Women (we were the front line - attack half the population, turn some of them into collaborators and other/blacken the name of the rest and you have majority of society under your control.
- Catch the children young - infiltrate the schools and get the idiot teachers to repeat the LIE that there is "no sex" that one can "change sex" that one's "gender" is immutable but at the same time flexible. Catch those who are vulnerable and teach that if they do NOT conform to a specific, narrow set of "sex based rules" for their sex (see - its relevant when that ideology wants it to be) then they are the "opposite" sex or "neither" sex and MUST HAVE DRUGS and SURGERY. "Think of the children" comes the cry"
- Change the definitions of basic and fundamental terms that our ancestors knew instinctively. Which actually means further attacks on one half of the human population by *removing* the words that describe them and what life experience they happen to be going through. Refer to them by sexual body parts and functions - thereby dehumanising and othering.
Pass their rightful words to the other more powerful half of the population. Make it a crime to complain. Literally.
- Redefine sexual orientation thereby removing at one stroke the possibility of any "sexual orientation" that is rooted in biology.
- Reject the science entirely.
Unless Starmer understands ALL the above and properly acts on it, we will find ourselves in a horrific situation (that other countries have already) whereby a person can be arrested and charged and imprisoned simply by telling the truth.
If as you say Starmer is playing a long game, he has to be clear on this topic one side or the other before the next GE.
I really not happy with the Tories but they are more likely to stop this ideology that attacks, threatens the very basis of human life and thus democracy than Labour are.
Labour is still vacillating on what a woman is - pretending its anyone who says they are. Which as we know, is men.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I believe in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and while this issue is important... there are people in foodbanks this winter for whom this must seem as remote as Mars. For me, the leading issue of the day is how Britain, one of the largest economies in the world, still has so many children living in mouldy houses, so many people afraid to switch on the heating, so many parents skipping meals so their children don't go without. That's not to say I don't think gender in law and policy is important, but I don't think we should be monomaniacal.
Children are suffering in many ways and have done under under both Labour and Conservatives,But messing with their young minds and bodies is the worst trangressive act of them all-endorsed and promoted by Western governments.
Read Jenifer Bilek and weep:
https://jonathonvanmaren.substack.com/p/how-a-handful-of-billionaires-created?utm_campaign=comment&utm_medium=email&utm_source=substack&utm_content=post
Great article, thanks.
I have twice heard Starmer in interviews say, unprompted, 'I know who I am'...in a proud/defiant tone.
Think this fits in with your idea that he refuses to *narrate*.
As you say, he has so far used this weakness as a strength. Sign of a mature operator.
But I agree with you that sometimes in politics you need to tell a story and argue a case openly, and he may yet fall down there.
But he does have a big advantage in all this. As your wise former colleague Stephen Bush says, he has a 'Prime Minister-shaped head'.
Great piece that articulates much about Starmer that has gone unnoticed (or unsaid). I think his much discussed lack of charisma may be a political asset during this phase. People have moaned about being victims of his duplicity/ruthlessness, but the public can't quite believe that someone so dull could be so calculating.
I thought it was telling that he didn't pursue music at uni because he felt he didn't have the easy natural talent of some other musical high-achievers. That's an unusual level self-knowledge and vision for anyone, especially at 18. So I can imagine he currently has a very low tolerance for Labour focusing on anything that doesn't contribute to electoral success.
Riveting: thank you.
Crucial for me that he has spoken up about fee-paying schools. Wish ‘fee-paying’ were the preferred adjective; ‘public’ and ‘private’ sanitise.
Yes, I was pleasantly surprised about this. My hope is that he feels he has bought himself credibility and is going to spend it on progressive policies (which Philip Gould’s Unfinished Revolution says is how New Labour saw their 97 campaign: pledge to stick to the Tory “spending envelope” but institute different spending priorities).
Nothing here about the nhs. In Starmer’s pitch on constitutional reform and vat on fee-paying schools he’s copped out on the strikes and the nhs falling off a cliff. Starmer and Streeting only utter banalities about the nhs around the theme of ‘preventative’ approaches when we need that PLUS beds PLUS well paid doctors/nurses PLUS publicly providing our health care. That would be a vote winner. No need for all these so-called feints.
Great piece, best analysis of Starmer, strengths and potential weaknesses, I have read. And OJ knows full well he's been had, and it's beautiful to watch his reaction to it!
My sympathy is tempered by the fact that there was a continuity Corbyn candidate available and she didn’t command majority support 🤷♀️
Wonderful, Helen. We’ve been pondering the ‘lack of passion and vision’ charge on our Northern Spin podcast. I think Starmer is both a product of his background, but also of these rather desperate times. He’s sensible enough to know that after 12 (soon to be 14) years of promises on the side of buses and lots of not getting stuff like Brexit done this country’s had quite enough of bullshitting hucksters. He can’t do the Obama Hope thing easily, but he’s also smart enough to know he shouldn’t try even if he could. Just be better, and honest.
Also particularly love the line about having OJ as an enemy being on a whiteboard of objectives.
I know what you mean about the vision question. I was talking to a labour lifer who framed it as the difference between the party being a skip or a magnet.
Great article. Straightforward principled politicians face an uphill struggle that stems from our first-past-the-post system. Parties are forced to be coalitions who, if not careful, spend most of their energies fighting each other.
Yes, there’s long been a compelling argument that labour would be happier as two parties in a formal coalition under PR than one party with a big seam down the middle under FPTP
There is a compelling argument that the UK would be happier with the big parties breaking into their factions under a PR system. Well I have believed that for 30 years.
The only problem is that we will end up with a permanent centrist coalition that will forever prevent the embracing of a truly progressive agenda. Given the alternativehiwever, it's hard to argue that isn't a price worth paying.
I rather enjoyed that, I’m a disillusioned Tory and my vote is very much up for grabs. Whilst his failure to fight the battles just quietly announcing changes might be good for party management it doesn’t give me anything to grab hold of, I guess I need to see some of these fights to jump - and a few more of the crazy Corbynistas getting shoved, but there are crazys on both sides I suppose, sadly many in seats for life.
I think it leaves open the question of what he actually believes—is he very leftwing in policy terms but also deeply tactical about the voters he needs to win? Or have his views evolved since 2015 in some profound way he hasn’t spoken about?
Thanks Helen! I sometimes wonder if people like Owen Jones have the self awareness to understand they are playing a role that is helpful to Starmer and Labour and that their personas are all a great big 4D chess political strategy. And then I remember that most people are winging it most of the time and he’s probably just a big baby that doesn’t like losing.
I feel very cheered by this Helen as this is what I've thought all along, until recently losing faith because of the trans malarky. It doesn't matter what socialist policies he might want in an ideal world, he's got to get the votes - it's the perfect being enemy of the good. Re trans issue, Keir has made some hopeful noises recently, and the tide is rapidly turning re trans ideology. I hope he'll manage to ride that tide. And Helen, working class, ethnic minority, non-uni educated people probably feel more oppressed and impatient with this ideology, its stranglehold over the intelligentsia, education and health services etc.
Reading the Guardian this morning for the first time in many years I found myself agreeing with Owen Jones. Strange times.
Yes,,@keirstamer!!!
He has to be after the shitshow the Tories left us with !