There's Nothing in the Briefcase
Keir Starmer's NATO article has attracted much debate on the left, albeit positions that only differ on the shades of condemnation colouring the response. And rightly so. In recent years, we've seen the military alliance described in Labour circles as an example of "internationalism", and an institution up there with the European Union in the liberal/centrist imaginary. Some comrades have noted that making this intervention in the pages of The Graun was a curious choice, considering the militarist-minded tend to get their news and opinion from other outlets. But it seems to me Starmer was doing two things: letting the deep pockets of British capital know he's their man when bombing and drone strikes are called for, and getting his stance out there so the rest of the media could take it up and amplify his position.
But has Starmer miscalculated? The British public, whether left or right, tend not to be the warmongering sort. Indeed, the dominant attitude on the right remains the default Little England abstentionism on military entanglements. Something the Tories are well aware of, considering how their absurd, humiliating display on the world stage this week saw them talking tough with Russia on Ukraine while pledging Britain won't be drawn into any (unlikely) war. As far as Starmer is concerned, his posturing to the sceptical, socially conservative electorate he erroneously believes Labour has to win over is telling them he can stand up to Britain's enemies. It is an article of faith across the Labour Party that Jeremy Corbyn blew it when he (apparently) fluffed the response to the Skripal poisonings in Salisbury. Starmer's tough-guy affectation tells them he can be trusted on security issues, as well as giving the Tories no room to claim Labour are anti-patriotic. It's pretty transparent stuff - politics as cynical marketing and "brand identity" building.
As part of Labour's wider strategy, attacking Stop the War, rubbishing Corbyn, and tailing the Tories on Russia is designed to make the flanks impervious to the usual right wing gambits. Which, the leadership believes, gives them licence to go personal over the next few weeks - at least according to the latest HuffPo feature. As Johnson's doing a good job of trashing himself, the first priority is taking Rishi Sunak down a peg or two. Briefly the most popular politician in Britain, they rightly discern that not only is the Chancellor socially distanced from the majority of the electorate thanks to his ill-gotten fortune, he's not the political genius some think he is. As his energy bill discount reminds us. But, it seems, the accent is going to be on Sunak's evident cluelessness rather than how he is responsible for holding down people's living standards. We're back in Starmer's "competence" comfort zone instead of taking on the politics.
We see it too with their attitude to Liz Truss. According to the piece, the foreign secretary plays well in the focus groups, which just goes to show why focus groups should be put in the bin. Continuing their theme, leadership insiders are reportedly "impressed" with Truss and believe she would give Labour more touble than Sunak. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, *innocent face*, and all that. We also learn they plan on countering Truss by spotlighting Labour's leading women. I'm not entirely sure pushing the wooden Rachel Reeves is going to conjure the electoral magic they think it will. They are on a surer footing with Lisa Nandy, who can do relatable and "authentic" quite well, when she's not telling outright lies. Yvette Cooper and the (heavily signposted) rising Bridget Phillipson are going to get top billing too and, and, ...and, that's it.
To quickly summarise. Inflation is galloping away while real wages are falling, Covid hasn't gone away even though the Tories are pretending it has, and there's no real relief from rising energy bills. Labour's response is to pretend a VAT cut will fix inflation, keeping mum about Tory management of the pandemic, and saying "look, we have female politicians too." As pre-pre-local election strategy goes, this is the weakest offering Labour have served up to the electorate for many a year. It's pathetic.
But pathetic has its purposes too. Like the NATO showboating, offering little beyond weak sauce rhetoric tells the Tory vote they're targeting that Labour is nothing to fear. And what is meant by "nothing to fear" is leaving the asset economy pretty much untouched. Hence no hint of nationalisation for dealing with energy costs (can't have the FTSE taking a hit, can we?) nor, for that matter, suggesting anything fundamental needs changing. The idea is to get this layer who benefits from rising property prices and who, disproportionately, turn out to vote entirely chillaxed so when the Tory attacks come they make a shallow impression. It might work, and it might also mean Labour stays true to its word if it gets into government. And that means doing nothing at all.
Image Credit