There’s a perversity about Sir Keir Starmer that it’s taken me the best part of a year to recognise. I say that as somebody who had been open to a new kind of politics, based, as he promised, on the principle of service.
Say it quietly, but I’ve been something of a Starmer fan. You could even call me a “stan”, as Gen Z call it these days. I’m exactly the kind of voter he would be wise to keep on side. You could even say I’m the canary in his proverbial deep mine.
I’ve also had a tough year defending him to friends who disliked him from the start. After advocating for pragmatic centrist politics for so long, I found it refreshing to watch a Prime Minister practising pragmatic centrist politics. It was also good to see something new in UK politics. I could even delude myself into thinking that Starmer’s missteps might be seen as forgivable flaws rather than as a reflection of deeper, fundamental problems with his government.
Now, however, I’m beginning to think he’s just plain bad at politics; in particular, the stubbornness of his determinations could well prepare the way for a big Labour loss in four years. He is perverse, too, in alienating the few people who might appreciate his uniquely pragmatic qualities.
This canary is here to tweet that I’m beginning to smell gas.
A few weeks ago, Starmer was riding high. His visit to Washington had gone surprisingly well. It turns out that understanding the psychology of Trump, along with the offer of a state visit, was enough to make a difficult sit-down tolerable. Then he went even further and provided a solidity to Europe during some difficult days. His leadership steered us towards doing the right thing and supporting Ukraine. We then saw a week of clever messaging coming out of London. The Prime Minister walked down the street to hug the Ukrainian leader. The King meeting Zelensky. The King wearing his Canadian medals on his Royal Navy uniform. Inviting Prime Minister Trudeau to a meeting of Europeans. Rumours that British officials were helping Ukrainians with their statecraft.
Clever. Clever. Clever. Tick. Tick. Tick.
The key point here was it was that it was all subtle. The messaging was nuanced. The leadership was outstanding. All was good and Starmer was succeeding in the very arena where Labour have often done so poorly in the past. There would be no cosying up too closely with a divisive American president, while also not creating extra tensions between London and Washington. A tightrope was being walked and Starmer was walking it with consummate ease. Even the UK red tops were filled with praise.
He would not make the same mistakes as Tony Blair. No. He was waiting to repeat the same mistakes of Margaret Thatcher to royally screw things up on the domestic front.
Two weeks ago, rumours began to circulate about Starmer’s plans to radically cut welfare payments to the nation’s sick. That wasn’t so much of a surprise. The growth of the social welfare bill is part of the problem that Labour inherited. Starmer needed to start to fix a badly broken system. That is to be welcomed.
What was not to be welcomed was the language he used to start that process. The last time a politician proposed something this toxic it involved the words Tax and Poll. Language around welfare reform should always be measured, in the knowledge that it will we heard most loudly by those already in the kinds of dire situations that require welfare. It’s a time for a soft touch and nuanced messaging.