Eighteen months ago, my profession made Sir Keir Starmer a loser. Now his English Labor party is 20 points in the polls, we are doing a good thing. We tell you why they are not at the front. He “must be brave”. He “needs to be more radical”. His party must “develop political imagination”. He must “tell us who he is” and “reveal his true plan”. It is only fair to remind you that “What is Starmerism?” the piece is near.
What is worse here, guess, after humiliating the person? Or the fact that all the advice of the piece? Almost never Starmer is told to stay alert and unrecognizable. Hardly a half-step was urged upon him. That pragmatism is illustrated. His success was recognized. But the causal relationship between one and the other becomes generally not drawn.
Contrast Starmer with Nicola Sturgeon. Scotland’s outgoing first minister is bravery incarnate. His career mission was nothing less than breaking away from England. The proposed bill on gender has stirred public opinion to the snapping point. In style, not just in substance, he took a risk, likening ministers in London to colonial “governors-general” and recasting the election as a plebiscite for independence.
For all his audacity and imagination, he has to show, right? A career that took place at 52. The cause of freedom that did not exist more than ten years ago. He did not fail. He won in a landslide in 2015. But even his resignation speech seemed to anger himself. How many voters could he win for the nationalists if they measured their tone? Or focus on technical areas to improve health and education? Or fudged his vision of what a sovereign Scotland would look like? By establishing itself clearly as a progressive haven, it offers potential support in a country that is largely conservative, if not Conservative.
Starmer should look north, then go to the critic, and continue as he is. To say that a cautious approach will make him prime minister by default, not by acclamation, is almost an understatement. Every leader elected to government is elected by default. They won because swing voters fear people a little less than the alternative. The closest thing to an exception in the UK in my lifetime was Tony Blair’s landslide in 1997. Even that has been revealed in retrospect. Voter turnout fell to a low after the war. John Major had won more votes the previous five years. The national rapture cooled with a speed that showed how it started.
No criticism of Blair. A politician’s job is not to inspire. It’s to get a plurality of voters to say, “Oh, go ahead.”
And in normal times. In the uproar, voters are even more likely to seek out the lesser evil. Radical propositions are even more certain to fail. This, I think, is Sturgeon’s tragedy. He ruled during an era when the public’s appetite for risk had been exhausted by external events. Brexit, Donald Trump, Covid-19: upheavals create separation, and provocative leadership, very disturbing.
And it makes Starmer’s No-Drama more vibrant than critics would have you believe. Political commentary suffers from a version of the principal-agent problem. Agents (commentators) are always interested in politics. The principal (reading and voting audience) has an interest. So the commentator will index certain qualities in the leader: charisma, boldness, clarity. That’s what us like because we turn to politics for drama and meaning. The audience gets these things from entertainment, or personal life.
The result is a chronic journalistic underestimation of certain types of leaders. It’s hard to describe the exasperation in Washington during the winter of 2018, when it became clear that Joe Biden would become president. Bernie Sanders is a story. Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg are a story. A middle-of-the-road veteran hoping to get third time lucky is a drag. But here he is.
Starmer is right to lure principals, not agents, to politics. Voters want leaders to have a definition, yes, but mostly negative. I will not raise the basic rate of income tax. I will not borrow to spend. I will not reopen Brexit. Beyond that, politicians need to look at policy details as some football coaches look at ball possession: responsibilities, opportunities to make mistakes. “Positive vision” is not what makes an election. It’s nothing scary. In 1997, Blair was considered vague and tentative. They need to create only with a majority of 179 seats in the parliament. Lack of courage, Starmer. Narrow your political imagination.
janan.ganesh@ft.com