The two main parties in British politics used to be clearly branded. Labour was for the downtrodden working class needing education, healthcare and protection against exploitation and hard times. Conservatives were for tradition, sound money, professions, possessions and the benefits of enterprise.
This fairly well-defined branding has gone, to be replaced by a few tattered old labels still being squeezed and squeezed again for whatever extractable residue they have left. Cheap politics is all we now have on offer. Unbranded, shoddily put together with odds and ends sourced from beyond our shores, ephemerally fashionable, disposable and impossible to repair.
A game selects the players able and willing to play it. It is striking how little mainstream political pundits have to say about Keir Starmer’s political principles and policies. He doesn’t appear to have either, which is no surprise. He clearly plays the modern political game, the unbranded version where he tailors his message to his audience while saying as little as possible. This is how the game is now played.
It is not even obvious that Starmer has any principles which led him into politics, other than some bloodless attraction to the rules of the political game, the first rule of which to have no principles because principles are weaknesses.
This avoidance of political weaknesses seems to be the key to Starmer’s playing style. It is still possible to impress the party faithful with principles, but the party is a mix of lesser players and supporters loosely grouped into factions playing internal games among themselves. To cope with this, Starmer plays the political game with a curious, cynical professionalism which deceives only the terminally gullible.
His style is based on solid defence combined with opportunist strikes at perceived weaknesses in the opponents’ tactics. The fundamental defence tactic is to present opponents and pundits with as little as possible which requires defending – so no firm principles and no firm policies. A secondary defence is to make it clear that he cannot be pinned down to specifics as he is prepared to repudiate anything at a later date.
It is not a complex nor a difficult style in itself but it has the advantage that Starmer is sufficiently uncharismatic to create the impression that he might be sincere. He isn’t at all sincere because this is not how he plays the game, but a lack of charisma helps obscure it.
Running counter to this advantage is that Starmer’s lack of charisma makes it more difficult to hide his lack of political principles. This seems to be a weakness. Not a weakness which is easily attacked politically, but one which is not easily hidden even in the fog of political warfare.
Collectively we get what we deserve, so apparently we deserve Starmer. To recycle a tired, overused but perennially pertinent phrase - what could possibly go wrong?
5 comments:
You could, if you were charitable, pity Sir IKEA. As Labour leader he has been educated by his experiences. Bend the knee - and be criticised. Say some women have penises - and be criticised. Say that there is no more money - and be criticised. Avoid calling for a Gaza cease fire - and be criticised.
So presenting a low attack surface to his critics becomes reflex. And his training as a barrister will emphasise that last year's cases are just process, with no bearing on present cases.
Me? I'm not so charitable.
I remember one general election when I was a boy where the Conservative was actually branded as a National Liberal Unionist. My father said "Three for the price of one; I think I might vote for him."
I hereby rebrand the third most important party: the neo-Scotnaz.
The tendency towards managerialism in politics was first noted in, I think, the 1970s. At university I was writing about the end of ideology and the rise of performative competence. I never dreamed it could go this far, though.
If the Tories had any fight in them, they would focus on Starmer's failed competence as DPP. I don't think they care now, especially as they've suffered another defection to Labour.
DJ - to a limited degree I do pity him. His chances of being viewed as a success are not high and the causes of that low attack surface are already demeaning. His choice though, so I'm not inclined to be charitable either.
dearieme - three for the price of one is a good deal, maybe all parties should have names which nail them down politically. Yes the third most important party is neo-Scotnaz, especially if the new leader ditches some of the baggage.
Sam - I don't think the Tories do care, as if they know they are not allowed to care enough to achieve anything significant because they will be undermined before they achieve it.
Post a Comment