Stirring Up Apathy

In the post-festive quietude of the political cycle, Keir Starmer's New Year speech gathered a momentum of press previews. We heard how he was going to plead with voters to turn out and not get complacent. And there was going to be another attack on Jeremy Corbyn to put clear water between the two. This might be enough to get friendly journalists excited, but voters? What the Labour leader treated us to was a retread of his party conference speech. Something that would look good after running it through a word cloud, but no downpours of solid reasons for voting for his party. What we got, again, was a collection of vibes.

There's nothing wrong with trying to get a buzz about politics, but how you go about generating enthusiasm for the programme on offer depends on two things. What the party is selling, and what the wider mood is. Starmer, or at least his speech writer, has grasped the obvious. Politics and politicians are held in contempt. But their response is ham-fisted. Stung by criticisms from wide-eyed leftists like John McTernan that have criticised Starmer for offering nothing, it appears 'hope' is the new watch word. We should be hopeful that Labour can change things. Not "grandiose hope" or utopianism, or the glib quick fix, but what Starmer calls "credible and frank" hope. A hope that "levels with you", that needs patience and hard work, but that is tangible and deliverable. It is the hope of a national renewal that only Labour can and is offering.

Starmer recognises that building hope means recasting politics. He wants a politics that isn't about gesture or cynical positioning, which is the character and purpose of Tory politics. The best way to crush them is to make politics that centres service - a theme Starmer has banged on about for more than a year now. This contrasts with what Sunak's done (or, more accurately, has refused to do) and the "vanity dressed up as virtue", which is how the Labour right style the Corbyn years these days. He said politics is embedded in everything from the money we earn to how our communities feel about themselves. Working people [sic] don't want the earth (more's the pity), but will settle for "stability, security, fairness". They want politics to "tread lightly". The politics of division, the populisms and the nationalisms rely on the permanent mobilisations against, of ho do we hate this week? Starmer's service politics are about consensus building, moderation, patience, pulling together and making moves in the right direction that takes everyone with them. There were no fresh details about what the new "light politics" involve, except for the usual - by now ritualistic - evocations of "mission-led government" and his five missions. There was more about how economic growth is the magic bullet for everything, but this would be different to Tory growth because Labour would make sure it benefits "working people". He promised that there would be no more denigration of public service, that the 2030 clean power generation target was non-negotiable, and that growth would be powered by stronger workers' rights. He also said that the "dark side of Westminster" would not be tolerated. If politics is to change, so must politicians. "I will restore standards in public life by cracking down on cronyism" and "No one above the law in a Britain I lead." Ultimately, the next election comes to a simple choice. Five more years of Tory cynicism, or national renewal with Labour?

The Q&A didn't have much of interest to say. He dodged a question about Peter Mandelson's associations with Jeffrey Epstein, confirmed he was still in favour of votes for 16 year olds. He didn't say anything about tax apart from growth, growth, growth, and how closing nondom loopholes and ending private schools' charitable exemptions are going to pay for everything he wants to do in the NHS and education. Apparently, stopping small boats in the channel is as easy as cracking down on criminal gangs, and he did not commit to reversing any measures the Tories might make toward abolishing inheritance tax. Hope? Starmer's audience could barely contain themselves.

This speech tells us two things. The first reconfirms what was written here three years ago: that Starmer's politics are Fabian at best. Wanting politics to "tread lightly" is the same as leaving the questions of how things should be, whose interests should be prioritised, and what policies should be legislated for to the "professionals". The proper place of everyone who isn't a politician is to get on with their lives and simply turn out and vote when elections come. Trust the politics specialists because they know best.

Returning to enthusiasm, yes, Starmer does understand where the public's mood is. His speech was written to intersect with it and offer solutions, but hope and a belief that politics is the road to a better place cannot have mass appeal if all it does is regurgitate sound bites and rote phrases. Especially when the politician appealing to the sense of optimism has spent three years undoing hopes for positive change. Writing for a Tory paper to make easily misconstrued comments about Thatcher doesn't suggest you're in the change game. Nor does giving Israel a free pass as it carries out ethnic cleansing in full view of the world's media. Nor suggesting the NHS uses every winter beds' crisis as an "excuse" to ask for more money. Nor does performative and try-hard embraces of national symbolism, and the reiterating the inviolability of stringent "fiscal rules" in a poor imitation of George Osborne. Nor does looking at Labour's 10 million voters in 2019 and spitting on their aspirations. Words count for nothing if they're at odds with one's actions. People have no affection for Starmer or for Labour because he's responsible more than anyone for stirring up apathy.

The election win is locked in because of how the Tories have behaved. But because there is no hinterland nor reservoir of genuine support for Starmer, either he or the people around him have got to know that when things go wrong, they're going to go very wrong.

Image Credit