Starmer does his best, but as it stands, that’s far from good enough
Starmer’s speech has in some ways been long awaited. Both staunch Starmerites and fierce critics have yearned for Starmer to open the policy floodgates, and put some meat on the bone of his up-till-now rather paltry looking political philosophy. This speech followed up Starmer’s publishing of an 11,000 article on the Fabian Society website, in which he offered the first rumblings of a manifesto. In general both the pamphlet and the speech are part of an effort on his part to emerge from the party infighting that has largely dogged the first chapter of his leadership into a more policy defined stage, where his manifesto can hopefully rear its head.
Alas, this speech did not, I deign to feel, go nearly far enough in presenting a detailed policy vision for Britain. Some good themes were hit, but much was left unsaid, and there were disappointing triangulations (most notably a lack of any mention of the need for criminal justice reform). As someone who backed Starmer heavily in the leadership campaign, and proudly described myself as a Starmerite for the bulk of his time in office, I come at this from an obvious bias. Nonetheless, I will not shirk from presenting my criticisms of the speech, and from pointing out the policy progressions that are needed in order for Starmer to form a winning coalition, bring in new voters, and hold together the fractious alliance of interests that is the Labour movement.
Some good aspects (with the bad intermingled :D)
First, it goes without saying almost, that Starmer’s back story, as the son of a toolmaker and a nurse, the first to go to university in his family, is an eternal crowd pleaser. More than the optics of this, and having heard this speech in person myself, I know how sincere Starmer is when he describes the road that took him into politics. It’s a strong story, one that certainly Boris, and moreover any number of past Labour leaders (Jezza included) would struggle to best. Starmer is no career politician, and was hardly groomed for this role, either in the corridors of Eton, or at the tea parties of posh socialists in London, and that is a clear strength that he can regularly pull out from his armoury.
Despite the strength of this story, it is possible to rely too much on one’s origins. I felt that Starmer’s speech was extremely heavy on his origin story. It makes sense why. This was his first major speech as a Labour leader, so naturally he was always going to introduce his origin story. Nonetheless, I struggle to remember another Labour leader making a speech with such an emphasis on personal narrative. Starmer seemed desperate to convince the audience that he really was a Labour man, and that his ethics, constructed as they were in a working class family, align with Labour values. Sometimes it was convincing, but sometimes he went too far, and at times the speech felt too much like the Starmer show, and not enough like a policy vision.
It was surprising to see how many times Starmer mentioned his father. In a Desert Island Discs interview I listened to with him, I remember him talking of his father as a very reserved man, who didn’t connect with Starmer much on an emotional level. Despite this emotional disconnect, his father clearly left a standing impression on Starmer about the dignity of work, as well as the devotion he unwaveringly gave to Starmer’s ailing mother.
Altogether, Keir is strong when describing his origin story. He’s penetrating in this moment because he’s really speaking from the heart. I find it hard to say the same for his policy prescriptions.
It’s time to critique…
Take this line:
‘’Let this conference ring out its approval to the NHS staff, truly the very best of us.’’
It is right that people began to clap NHS staff at the height of the pandemic. Then, as now, they deserve our solidarity and support. However, when the crucial moment came to decide whether to back a pay rise for NHS staff, Keir dithered. He eventually came round to the idea, but Labour, as with so many other easy wins, was not controlling the narrative. Starmer supports a 2.1% rise, above inflation, which seems reasonable to me. There is pressure from the left/Unions to push for a fifteen percent rise, but this is far-fetched to my mind. So at least Starmer has a clear position here, but rather than stressing the need for this pay rise in the speech, he trumpeted the tokenistic gesture of clapping, a policy borrowed directly from the Tories. To me, it seemed an awkward thing to do. Policies count for more than claps.
Shortly after this, I was very disappointed. Starmer said:
‘’And that’s why, under my leadership, the fight against crime will always be a Labour issue. Labour will strengthen legal protections for victims of crime. We won’t walk around the problem. We’ll fix it.’’
Keir is a lawyer. He knows how broken the criminal justice system is in the UK. And yet, rather than presenting a nuanced vision of how the criminal justice system can be reformed, incorporating Scandinavian ideas of rehabilitation, Keir went down a bog standard law and order position. This is hugely disappointing and intellectually dishonest. Study after study has proved that tougher sentencing does nothing to reduce the causes of crime, and can even increase it. This is pure sloganeering and so disappointing to see from someone who should know better.
That’s not to say that victims don’t deserve more support, they definitely do. But it’s incredibly dishonest of Keir to make no mention of the fact that the UK has the highest incarceration rate in Western Europe, and that our prison system is in dire need of reform. Maybe he’s trying to signal to the so called Red Wall voters that Labour under Keir will always be tough on criminals, thus correcting a perception that Labour lets people off easy. Either way, there’s no radicalism in this policy from Keir. It’s pure virtue signalling.
And now for Keir’s signature line of attack against the silly elephant, who of course wasn’t in the room, Boris:
‘’I don’t think Boris Johnson is a bad man. I think he is a trivial man. I think he’s a showman with nothing left to show. I think he’s a trickster who has performed his one trick.’’
Right, on principle, Keir is making a good point here. Far too often Labour attack lines are premised on casting the Tories as evil people. This line is tired and ineffective, and Keir is right to point out that Boris is not an evil, amoral person. However, to bill him as a trickster who’s played his last trick is again, an exhausted attack line. Can Labour speechwriters really imagine people sitting around in the pub bemoaning the PM for being ‘a trickster’? Of course not.
Keir could go for any number of attacks. Why not stress the silver spoon nature of British politics, how Boris has had everything on a plate for him, his whole life, and how this leaves him thoroughly undeserving of the highest office? Why not get far, far, deeper into policy attacks? Stress the dividing lines between the Tories and Labour! Talk about Dominic Cummings and Boris’ cowardice in refusing to face him down. Just be more penetrating in your attacks. Boris is a trivial guy, but it shouldn’t be underestimated how important his sense of humour is in providing a basis for his continued appeal to voters. Calling him a trickster is like calling Donald Trump a narcissist. It doesn’t stick. Voters know who Boris is, and they like him for it. It’s much better to get deep in your policy attacks and focus on this, in my book.
‘’And a Labour government will always fund the NHS properly.’’
It’s one of the truisms of modern British politics that the NHS is the closest thing we have to a national religion. There’s little role for organised religion in modern British political discourse but the NHS is repeatedly pointed at as the institution of virtue, an untouchable behemoth that must always be fed the right resources. Of course there’s real wisdom in this adoration of our world-famous health institution. Britain is right to be proud. However, Labour needs to reconsider how it talks about the NHS. The Tories make no secret of the fact that they too wish to fund the NHS to a great extent. Labour’s promise to ‘properly fund’ the NHS in reality translates to a couple more billion each election. Of course a billion is a lot of money, but the different funding formulas offered by the two parties are hardly indicative of a long term, sustainable funding strategy. Labour should be more dynamic and open in its policy formation on this matter. Voters still trust Labour more on the NHS, but only just. If Labour wants the NHS to grow as a winning issue for Labour, it needs much more radical ideas than ‘let’s throw a bit more money at it,’
‘’We will reinstate two weeks of compulsory work experience and we will guarantee that every young person gets to see a careers advisor.’’
I remember reading on Twitter that reinstating the two weeks compulsory work experience was a useless thing, that students don’t really benefit. I don’t agree. I did two weeks work experience at a Newspaper, and I loved it. Some of the things I learnt in that office have remained with me ever since. Nonetheless, unless Labour properly facilitates this work experience offer, it will be useless. I was only able to work at the newspaper because my Dad helped me to contact them. Not everyone will have such proactive parents. This policy pronouncement, as with so many others in this speech, needed fleshing out. Instead we got a slogan.
Get ready for another tired Labour attack line!
‘’They want to reintroduce Latin in state schools’’
Starmer’s attack on this policy seems strange to me. I was educated in a state school and as such never received Latin training. Since moving to first Germany, and then the Netherlands, I’ve met scores of people who studied Latin all through their early schooling. They are broadly positive about this experience, and reaffirm the truth that having a grasp of Latin aids one’s attempts to learn other European languages. I think Starmer’s attack here is playing into a stereotype of Tories as stuffy, old Etonians, who like to read ancient Greek plays and speak Latin all day. Of course these stereotypes are not always entirely divorced from reality (see Jacob Rees-Mogg), but nonetheless such attacks do not cut through. We’re not in the 1980s anymore. We live in a completely different Britain to the Britain where such attacks made sense. The Tory party of today is multi-ethnic, multi-class, cross-regional. Making out that it’s just rich people, sitting about speaking Latin is intellectually dishonest and doesn’t stick. Why not reintroduce Latin? I think other policies should be a higher priority of course. But I also think state school kids should get the same opportunities as privately educated kids, and this applies to Latin teaching.
‘’all spending will be scrutinised by an Office for Value for Money’’
I haven’t investigated the details of this policy but it seems like a virtue signal to me. Governments are accountable for every pound they spend. There is an element of deliberacy in every spending decision. Value for money, according to these principles are already baked into the process of government spending, and thus the creation of an Office for Value for Money would just be another layer of bureaucracy, that would do little to ensure better distribution of resources.
‘’You want levelling up? That’s levelling up’’
It’s a good point, but it could be so much stronger. I just feel that whilst there were times that Starmer was hitting the right policy points, the speech could have been far better rhetorically. Working out good attack lines is a difficult task but it’s very important, and the current speechwriters are just not nailing it.
Concluding Line
So there you have it. My write up on Keir’s speech. I know it’s been a while coming, but I’m glad that I’ve managed to add some thoughts to this end. All in all, the speech was certainly Starmer’s best as leader. The thing is, that’s not saying too much. Starmer has had an underwhelming start and there is much to improve on if he is to improve his abysmal polling record of only leading in 1 of the last 180+ polls.
I hope this piece has seemed constructive in tone. My aim has been to credit Starmer where he deserves it, but mostly to emphasise the many shortcomings of the speech.
I wish Keir well, but I fear that the phrase ‘“you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink” aptly describes Keir’s inability to bring a more charismatic version of himself to the fore, since becoming leader. I hope I’m wrong on this.
Only time will tell.
