September 24, 2024 - 5:30pm
Liverpool
Keir Starmer is torn between two distinct instincts, each of which pulls him in a different direction. On one side there’s “blue” Starmer: conservative, provincial and quietly radical for the Labour Party. On the other there’s his “pink” alter ego: liberal, metropolitan and entirely conventional. In his speech today both instincts were visible, locked in a battle for supremacy, the winner of which will define his premiership.
The theme of Starmer’s speech was conventional for any prime minister, liberal or conservative. He portrayed himself as a straight-talking leader who would take the difficult decisions required in the short term to rebuild the country. So far, so normal.
More striking was his analysis of the last 14 years of Tory rule. In the Labour leader’s telling, this period was one of “populism” in which successive governments took the easy option available, storing up problems for later that left voters disillusioned. This is not an economic or even an ideological critique as much as a moral one. Starmer was arguing that his government was morally better than the last lot. This is the classic, comforting fable of the Labour Party.
Yet the Prime Minister at times attempted to challenge both his party and its voters, and it was in these moments that it was possible to glimpse the twin Starmerite instincts. In one section, he began to lay out what appeared to be a challenge to the Labour Party’s deepest instincts on immigration in an attempt to speak beyond the room to the country at large. People had “legitimate” concerns about immigration, Starmer said, and it did not make them racist. Indeed, he stated that his government’s policy was to seek both control of the numbers coming into the country and lower numbers overall.
Going further, Starmer set out an ideological attempt to claim immigration restrictions as a Labour policy rather than a Tory one because government controls were anathema to the latter’s free-market instincts. “Markets don’t give you control,” Starmer declared. In contrast, he also said that the Labour Party should not accept apprenticeships declining in areas where visas are going up. Here is the beginning of a potentially transformative political manoeuvre to capture prime Tory territory. Yet it was not followed through with any real energy.
Instead, it was the liberal instinct in Starmer which triumphed. He told voters they would have to accept legitimate asylum seekers as the price of being able to return illegal immigrants with no right to be in Britain. This is not a challenging message to deliver to the Labour Party — it is an entirely safe one.
The “blue” message he could have delivered was the opposite: that if Labour wants to maintain support for Britain’s liberal, humane asylum system, it needs a tougher border regime. In another line, he said those who believed the only way to love your country is to hate your neighbour would never win. Again, the challenging “blue” message some close to Starmer would have preferred is the opposite: the desire to control the border does not stem from hatred for Britain’s neighbours, but love of home.
The subtle difference in messaging between these two positions masks a deeper struggle for the soul of the Starmer project. Though he set out to deliver a tough message to his party in order to be heard in the country, in the end he delivered too many easy lines. It is exactly the charge he levelled at his predecessors in government.
Tom McTague is UnHerd’s Political Editor. He is the author of Betting The House: The Inside Story of the 2017 Election.
TomMcTague
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAll very well, but when will the sausages be returned?
A Freudian slip if ever there was one. McTague highlights the conflict in Starmer’s message, but no surprise when his brain must’ve been telling him “i’m telling porkies”, “I’m telling porkies”. Rather than pies/lies; it came out as “sausages”.
When there’s a return to the two steak solution.
Summary: He’s confused and out of his depth.
While we’re on taking the easy options:
Number of reservoirs built under Labour 1997-2010 : 0
Number of power stations built under Labour 1997-2010 : 0
Number of major new road projects cancelled under Labour 2024-present : all
Not so sure this has anything to do with Starmers soul. It’s more about holding together a coalition of voters made up of people who fundamentally disagree on some pretty key issues (including immmigration). No surprise if he comes across as all things to all people.
That’s a pretty deft move. I wonder who came up with that one.
It’s just words. Empty words and nothing more. No one listens to the words of politicians on immigration any more. Why would they ? There’s zero trust. The only thing that matters is the actions.
I think the author is somewhat optimistic referring to “Starmer’s project” as if it were a coherent vision and plan for the nation.
It’s a valiant attempt by the author to paint Starmer as a political personality in conventional terms, but it must surely be obvious to everyone including the author, it’s already too late. Starmer is firmly ensconced in the slalom downwards and there is no possible way to get off without incurring lacerating injuries to himself and his party. Unless that is, you believe in miracles. All that remains is an increasingly fractious half-decade long drama incoming, where an ever increasingly reviled government comes under increasing pressure and responds with increasingly bizarre policies and narratives in various desperate attempts to turn the tide.
There is absolutely no indication that Reeves and Starmer between them have any clue how to deliver growth, in fact everything they have done so far, and everything said they say they are planning to do, will very clearly lower growth and with it tax revenues. To survive politically, they would need to deliver something like 2% per annum for the next couple of years, when every single local and global indicator is flashing amber for the start of a major global contraction.
It’s early yet, but if I was a gambling man I’d be putting my money on them failing to achieve significant growth (or meet their housing targets). And if they do achieve growth I suspect it will be by luck rather than good strategy. I just don’t see them being radical enough – and they have been too glib about Tory failure, as if doing better is just about uttering the right magic words.
And I’m guessing Rachel Reeves has her eye on Starmers job by now, which will not help the infighting.
I should add that I am more resigned and disappointed than gloating.
Yet another fairy story from Tom. Next Angela will wave her magic growler and all will be well in the world. Yay!
A totally off the mark reading of the article as some sort of paean to Starmer! It wasn’t! As so depressingly often, we get comments on here from people who do not seem to have even properly read, let alone understood the main arguments made. “Ah, but I already know the sort of thing Tom McTague thinks and says”…..and the like.
Complete and utter hoo-ha. Perhaps it is you who cannot read and understand, not that you would ever admit the ignorance you ascribe to all others. How depressing. Starmer the liberal and conservative and the answer to all our prayers.