Low energy Starmer stumbling around in a fog of complacency
Keir Starmer is not a stupid man. Nor is he a bad man. Indeed, he is a decent fellow with humane instincts. In that – sole – regard, there is a resemblance to both Winston Churchill and David Cameron. When Rab Butler was preparing the 1944 Education Act, he went to brief Churchill and drew the PM’s attention to a proposal for free school milk. “Pour it down their throats” said Churchill, while recharging Rab’s champagne glass. “I wish we could give them this as well”. At that point, Clementine Churchill intervened: “Winston, you’re far too generous with that stuff as it is,” she declared, fixing Butler with a beady-eyed glare. Churchill had the last word: “I wish every cottage home could enjoy the advantages I’ve had.”
David Cameron’s Big Society drew on a similar socially generous impulse. Cameron wanted every community to be as healthy as a well-run Oxfordshire village. There were problems, both with content and words. First, it was not clear what the government could actually do to work towards the Cameron vision. Second, the “Big” sounded vaguely threatening: a hint of a sinister ministry in 1984. Civic virtues are best practised in little platoons. When it was not Orwellian, the language sounded a bit like a hearty curate, trying to jolly along a church outing when it was pissing with rain and someone had forgotten the sandwiches.
But David Cameron’s agenda went well beyond hearty curacy. It is not clear that the same is true of Sir Keir. If he were in charge of an outing, everyone would have fallen asleep on the coach. He has published his vision of the future. Never did a title bear less relation to the ensuing text. The “Vision” consists of 12,000 words of soporific gloop. At one stage, he insists that “This isn’t about being pollyannish or sentimental.” Oh yes it is. At no point does he acknowledge that governments have to confront hard choices and take difficult decisions. In paragraph after paragraph, platitude is piled on banality. One could conclude that Sir Stumbler was paying a tribute to motherhood and apple pie, except that he probably regards “motherhood” as politically incorrect.
Anyone who thinks that I might be exaggerating should study his recent comments on the trans question. A Labour MP, Rosie Duffield, who has dared to insist that there are biological differences between men and women, now believes that it would not be safe for her to attend the Labour Party conference.
This is what Keir Starmer thinks: “The trans communities are among the most marginalised communities, therefore we have to find a way forward: the current legislation I don’t think works in the way that it should.
“We should have a process for self-identification, but I’m equally clear that the equalities legislation applies, and that means that in certain circumstances there can be an exemption. That’s been Labour Party policy, actually common sense, for a long time.”
If the scintillating prose did not sabotage your powers of concentration and you were able to keep reading to the end, you might come to two conclusions. First, Sir Stumbler has a very odd notion of common sense. Second, that he does not know the meaning of the word “clear”. On the latter point, I would have to correct you. The Labour Leader is capable of clarity.
Rosie Duffield insists that only a woman can have a cervix. Asked whether he agreed, Keir Starmer replied: “It’s something that shouldn’t be said. It’s not right”. When it comes to defying common sense and repudiating biology, Sir Keir is clear.
There is one rational explanation for this nonsense. Poor Sir Stumbler is desperately trying to bring his party under control. He wanted to change the party’s electoral system in order to weaken the influence of the disruptive Left, but is meeting strong resistance. It may be that over 100,000 Labour Party members are still suffering from long Corbyn, and have no wish to be cured. Jeremy Corbyn did offer them a vision: socialism. They still believe in that and like a lot of fanatics they also believe that If their doctrines were properly explained, millions of followers would rally to their banners. At least in this instance, Sir Keir is wiser.
He wants to give himself a chance of winning the next election. This means preventing his own supporters from wrecking the joint. But it also involves compromises. The Corbynistas will insist that some of their lunacies must form part of Labour’s programme. So he may be prepared to give them biology if they will let him expound relatively sane economic policies. As long as he is not obliged to promise wholesale nationalisation, they can have the male cervix.
The likelihood is that this will please nobody. Sir Keir’s Leftist opponents probably do not spend much time reading Revelation. If they did, they might be impressed by Our Lord’s rebuke to the Laodiceans: “because thou art lukewarm…I will spue thee out of my mouth.” Behind the former Red Wall meanwhile, the male cervix will not do Labour much good. At one stage in the Vision, Keir Starmer is indignant with the Tories for fighting the culture wars. As he is clearly afraid of the electoral consequences for him, what does he expect the Tories to do, except persevere? He is also cross with the Tories for claiming that there is a problem over free speech in the universities, which raises an obvious question. Does he ever talk to anyone – apart from woke Marxists – who actually teaches in a university?
There is a phrase which H. L. Mencken coined to describe a style of stump oratory much favoured by shyster politicians in some of the more slow-witted parts of the boondocks: Bomfog. It stands for the brotherhood of man and the fellowship of God, and though one might have thought that it had been derided to the point of extinction, evidently not. Sir Keir Starmer has revived it. Yet there is a difference between him and the boondocks bomfoggers of yesteryear. They did it with more panache. He does not do panache. Indeed, there is a long list of things which he does not do – including plausibility.