Starmerism at Year's End
One would be overly generous to describe Labour's comfortable position having anything to do with what the Labour leader has done. As explained here many times before, the chief characteristic of all governments since 1979 has been the centralisation of power and authority in the executive of the state and a weakening of the relative autonomy of the other institutions that comprise it. The main political consequence of this has been the ever greater investiture in the leadership and authority of the Prime Minister. If this drains away it's difficult to restore, and more often than not a new leader is required to recoup it for the cycle to be jumpstarted. This insight helps explain why Johnson clung to bad decisions made last year: because he could not be seen to be forced into retreat. Evidently issues vary in their capacity to erode authority, but coming one after the other they can have a cumulative effect. This has been the state of play since the summer. The Afghanistan debacle, National Insurance increase, suspension of the Triple Lock, and the unforced arrogance of the Owen Paterson affair put the Tories on the ropes, but it appears the Christmas Party scandal is the coup de grace. Nothing says dumping on the sacrifices practically everyone has had to make quite like a cheese and wine soiree.
Keir Starmer did nothing to achieve this outcome. None of this was foisted on the Tories by Labour making the political weather. That said from the point of view of increasing divisions among the government, Starmer was undoubtedly right in forcing Johnson to rely on Labour votes to get the latest round of Covid precautions through. Someone might point out that Starmer's room for manoeuvre was and is limited, thanks to the small matter of a large Tory majority and the press being uninterested in what Labour's doing. This is true enough, but even before he became leader Starmer indicated he wasn't about to contest the terms of Tory pandemic management. Whereas a properly constructive opposition would have made suggestions about supporting workers and containing the spread of infection, Starmer side-stepped this responsibility and opted for his comfort zone: managerial and process issues. It was a relatively simple matter for Johnson to brand the opposition leader as a bean-counting pedant, player of politics, and Captain Hindsight. In other words, Starmer made Labour irrelevant. Therefore when the vaccines came rolling out, his charges of mismanagement did not match up with the very smooth and well-organised job of millions getting their jabs. But perhaps abdicating from the politics of Covid ended up doing Starmer a favour. Also thanks to his courting the papers, Starmer has faced no press heat about the fights he's provoked inside the party, the pressure on him after the Hartlepool debacle was negligible, and even recent footage of him socialising when restrictions were in place was ignored.
Naturally, none of the Labour leader's fans can be this honest. Or at least, not say it out loud. John Rentoul, for example, puts this about turn in Labour's fortunes in the context of a praiseworthy "strategic patience". A funny way of saying luck. But this does raise a problem for Starmer. If the party's lead persists and Starmer's personal ratings continue to improve, "patience" will become the official explanation just as the vaccine bounce was the standard narrative for the polling doldrums. And, politics being politics, there's the tendency for leaders to quaff their own hype. This is a problem for Starmer because one thing he's demonstrated the last year is inflexibility. Since his rapid distancing from the leadership pledges into his preferred combo of technocratic Fabianism and superficial Blue Labourism, there has been no deviation from this course. The danger here is not so much the plastic patriotism, which all Labour leaders affect, but the policy prescriptions. If he offers nothing more substantial than competent leadership versus Johnson or his likely successor or, worse, emphasises his right wing positioning versus the Tories the left flank he needs to keep on board might find themselves tempted by the Greens, or by staying at home: a risk Labour cannot afford. Similarly, if Johnson undergoes an unlikely revival or his successor reinvents the Tories, a dogmatic insistence on the present course would not serve Labour well when a certain flexibility is required.
Nevertheless, Starmer and the Labour right are on a high, topped off by the Tory disaster in North Shropshire and the well-received Christmas address. To borrow Rentoul's phrase, now is the time for strategic patience. First, let the Tories carry on digging their hole, while occasionally lending them the spade. Second, concentrate on pushing a consistent and eye-catching narrative that can win back the lion share of the 2017 coalition and enough Tory voters. Recent polling shows this is possible, provided Starmer doesn't throw it away with another attack on the left or more right wing posturing. This moment is Labour's opportunity and Starmer's second chance - we'll see if 2022 is the year that builds toward an eventual election victory, or yet another famous defeat.