Keir Starmer's "Prime Ministerial" Address
Define "prime ministerial". It's an ability to speak authoritatively, appear as if one knows what they're doing, and not look like a sack of spuds in a suit. This most nebulous of countenances was something Dave had. In fact, looking the part was arguably his greatest political skill. Theresa May had it too. She was very much the "grown up" in the room until her authority was shot. Jeremy Corbyn didn't have it because politics. And neither does Boris Johnson because Boris Johnson. But how about Keir Starmer? He has the nice hair cut. He's reasonably telegenic. You can imagine him carrying a briefcase and wouldn't look out of place flicking through a filofax, if they were still a thing. The Labour leader and his media people think so too, which helps explain the framing for his Monday night national address.
Let's consider the setting. Yes, of course the Union Jack was going to be there. Starmer handed over too much members' cash to managerial consultants for their advice to be ignored. Is anyone going to rush out and vote Labour because of a patriotic prop? I doubt it, but the aim is to dampen any Tory attacks about his and Labour's lack of national pride. It looks synthetic if Starmer starts painting his face in the colours of St George, but a relatively unobtrusive flag here and there, just like how the Tories do it, adds to the ambience. Going back to the opening few seconds is also interesting. The desk is quite vintage looking. Indeed, everything to the left of the flag is a bit redolent of the second world war. The old books (obviously none from Gollancz's Left Book Club) and the interesting tray the water rests on is all a bit olde worlde, a subtle nostalgic nod. Move to the centre and there's Starmer himself, picture of the family prominently displayed at the back with a few Christmas cards and sheets of parliamentary paper in front of him. And then to the right of the screen, there's the laptop, a selection of middlebrow art books and, in case FBPE liberals were spooked by the patriotism talk, the non-too-subtle Obama: An Intimate Portrait is conspicuously lodged with other non-threatening lifestyle/coffee table titles. The overall affectation is Starmer as someone flanked by past certitudes and liberal modernity, a politician who knows where he's come from and where he is going.
This speech itself was straight forward Blue Labourism, shorn of its more radical moments. He discussed our "shared national duty" to stand by NHS workers as they battle through the Omicron wave. He linked the protection of the NHS to "Britain's interests", establishing a relationship between a traditional Labour strength to overcome (LOTO believes) a key Labour weakness - on sticking up for the country. Other nods to a soft social conservatism included referencing Her Majesty's opposition, "our nation", and to reinforce Labour's responsible responsibleness, Starmer said "we are a patriotic party and it is our patriotic duty to ensure these [Covid restrictions] go through. In doing so, we are supporting our NHS and supporting our country." He made a point of wishing everyone a happy Christmas from his family, and inbetween repeated standard public health messaging. His criticism of the Tories was blunted and implied ("we need leadership ..." and breaking off to say everyone has to do their bit). He said Labour's patriotic duty was to critique the Tories, and took a dig at them for being woefully unprepared.
Taking the contrivance of the setting together with soft ball criticisms, we are seeing a subtle shift in Starmer's opposition strategy. From even before he became Labour leader, he signalled that his idea of "constructive opposition" was to do nothing except back the government and make process criticisms when there were obvious failings. This, one might argue (and indeed, his supporters have) was because Labour shouldn't "play politics" in times of crisis and no one was interested in what the party had to say anyway. Except some people were very interested, and that was the Tories. Starmer and friends would rather pretend the Jeremy Corbyn interlude never existed, but it's a matter of public record that the suggestions he made in the dying days of his leadership were incorporated into the Tories' approach to Covid mitigation. Had Starmer done the same thing, he might have taken the initiative on Coronavirus and introduced himself earlier to the electorate as a serious figure with something worthwhile to say. Unfortunately for him, the Tories brushed aside his criticisms and accused him of playing politics anyway, while constructing the politics of the crisis to suit them and their interests.
Now, in fits and starts, Starmer is finally contesting their leadership. It is a weak challenge. The critique is muted and couched in the mildest terms, but tonight's attempt at prime ministerialism opposed stability and strong government with Starmer to chaos with Boris Johnson. To coin a phrase. In recent weeks Labour has rediscovered the utility of making suggestions for dealing with the pandemic, and is manoeuvring to position itself as Covid's most determined adversary. And here, the Tories are providing them a gift. The prospect of 70 plus MPs voting on Tuesday against the government's latest round of - broadly supported - precautions against the new variant makes them look like a bunch of idiots. Meanwhile, despite there being significant problems with the vaccine passport scheme, Labour gets to play the responsible party card. They are the ones putting public health and protecting the NHS first. Hence why they've attached no conditionalities to backing Johnson on this. The strategic thinking is let the Tories immolate themselves over a politics that appeals to the tiny anti-vax/Covid denialist movement. Plus getting this through on the basis of Labour votes erodes Johnson's already tenuous authority further, without Starmer having to risk an iota of political capital.
Turning back to the address, the newspapers will be happy with it. The bosses will be happy with it. And LOTO are hoping there was enough to introduce him to sceptical Tory voters as someone they can imagine on the steps of Number 10, and would do a better job of handling the responsibilities of office better than Johnson. Undoubtedly it's going to get focus grouped to death, but overall Starmer and his supporters are bound to be happy with the broadcast. For the first time in a long time, it appears politics is going their way.
Let's consider the setting. Yes, of course the Union Jack was going to be there. Starmer handed over too much members' cash to managerial consultants for their advice to be ignored. Is anyone going to rush out and vote Labour because of a patriotic prop? I doubt it, but the aim is to dampen any Tory attacks about his and Labour's lack of national pride. It looks synthetic if Starmer starts painting his face in the colours of St George, but a relatively unobtrusive flag here and there, just like how the Tories do it, adds to the ambience. Going back to the opening few seconds is also interesting. The desk is quite vintage looking. Indeed, everything to the left of the flag is a bit redolent of the second world war. The old books (obviously none from Gollancz's Left Book Club) and the interesting tray the water rests on is all a bit olde worlde, a subtle nostalgic nod. Move to the centre and there's Starmer himself, picture of the family prominently displayed at the back with a few Christmas cards and sheets of parliamentary paper in front of him. And then to the right of the screen, there's the laptop, a selection of middlebrow art books and, in case FBPE liberals were spooked by the patriotism talk, the non-too-subtle Obama: An Intimate Portrait is conspicuously lodged with other non-threatening lifestyle/coffee table titles. The overall affectation is Starmer as someone flanked by past certitudes and liberal modernity, a politician who knows where he's come from and where he is going.
This speech itself was straight forward Blue Labourism, shorn of its more radical moments. He discussed our "shared national duty" to stand by NHS workers as they battle through the Omicron wave. He linked the protection of the NHS to "Britain's interests", establishing a relationship between a traditional Labour strength to overcome (LOTO believes) a key Labour weakness - on sticking up for the country. Other nods to a soft social conservatism included referencing Her Majesty's opposition, "our nation", and to reinforce Labour's responsible responsibleness, Starmer said "we are a patriotic party and it is our patriotic duty to ensure these [Covid restrictions] go through. In doing so, we are supporting our NHS and supporting our country." He made a point of wishing everyone a happy Christmas from his family, and inbetween repeated standard public health messaging. His criticism of the Tories was blunted and implied ("we need leadership ..." and breaking off to say everyone has to do their bit). He said Labour's patriotic duty was to critique the Tories, and took a dig at them for being woefully unprepared.
Taking the contrivance of the setting together with soft ball criticisms, we are seeing a subtle shift in Starmer's opposition strategy. From even before he became Labour leader, he signalled that his idea of "constructive opposition" was to do nothing except back the government and make process criticisms when there were obvious failings. This, one might argue (and indeed, his supporters have) was because Labour shouldn't "play politics" in times of crisis and no one was interested in what the party had to say anyway. Except some people were very interested, and that was the Tories. Starmer and friends would rather pretend the Jeremy Corbyn interlude never existed, but it's a matter of public record that the suggestions he made in the dying days of his leadership were incorporated into the Tories' approach to Covid mitigation. Had Starmer done the same thing, he might have taken the initiative on Coronavirus and introduced himself earlier to the electorate as a serious figure with something worthwhile to say. Unfortunately for him, the Tories brushed aside his criticisms and accused him of playing politics anyway, while constructing the politics of the crisis to suit them and their interests.
Now, in fits and starts, Starmer is finally contesting their leadership. It is a weak challenge. The critique is muted and couched in the mildest terms, but tonight's attempt at prime ministerialism opposed stability and strong government with Starmer to chaos with Boris Johnson. To coin a phrase. In recent weeks Labour has rediscovered the utility of making suggestions for dealing with the pandemic, and is manoeuvring to position itself as Covid's most determined adversary. And here, the Tories are providing them a gift. The prospect of 70 plus MPs voting on Tuesday against the government's latest round of - broadly supported - precautions against the new variant makes them look like a bunch of idiots. Meanwhile, despite there being significant problems with the vaccine passport scheme, Labour gets to play the responsible party card. They are the ones putting public health and protecting the NHS first. Hence why they've attached no conditionalities to backing Johnson on this. The strategic thinking is let the Tories immolate themselves over a politics that appeals to the tiny anti-vax/Covid denialist movement. Plus getting this through on the basis of Labour votes erodes Johnson's already tenuous authority further, without Starmer having to risk an iota of political capital.
Turning back to the address, the newspapers will be happy with it. The bosses will be happy with it. And LOTO are hoping there was enough to introduce him to sceptical Tory voters as someone they can imagine on the steps of Number 10, and would do a better job of handling the responsibilities of office better than Johnson. Undoubtedly it's going to get focus grouped to death, but overall Starmer and his supporters are bound to be happy with the broadcast. For the first time in a long time, it appears politics is going their way.