Starmer still lacks political skills

Rochdale deserves further pondering. Although it was one of the most publicised by-elections in recent years, three in five voters absented themselves. A further 6,000 of them voted for a local businessman with no political background. This is further proof that the locals knew what was happening. Those who stayed away made a conscious decision. So, apart from Geoge Galloway, the other winner was Malvolio and his verdict on the two main parties: “A plague on both your houses.”

What does all this mean? The Tories can take comfort from volatility and further evidence that even if the voters are mightily brassed off, they have not signed up to Keir Starmer. Sir Keir could reply that, if a lot of voters feel let down, they are bound to heap most of the blame on the government. It may be a long way from visions or brave new dawns, but there might be electoral potency in: “May as well give the other lot a go. They couldn’t do worse than this.” Labour’s lead in the opinion polls suggests that this may indeed be working.

Could Rishi Sunak persuade them otherwise? If so, he ought to begin – by trying. Bazball may not seem as potent a cricketing strategy as it did a few weeks ago. After the excitement and the tsunami of boundaries, the Geoffrey Boycott school has got its breath back and is now denouncing the follies of impetuous youth. But on the political wicket, Rishball is still worth an outing. 

There is one point in the PM’s favour. People still do not know who he is. So out of curiosity, he is able to command a hearing, in a way that John Major was unable to do in 1995/96. Moreover, decent but wooden Sir Stumbler is no Tony Blair. The criticism of the current PM – and one hears it from a fair few Tories – is that although he may be a very able fellow, he is more at home with spreadsheets than with human beings.

It is of course an asset that few doubt his personal competence, but there has to be an extra dimension. Yet there is. We saw it on Friday outside Number 10. This is a man who cares about Britain, who values the opportunities it has given him and his family; who loves this country, and who is in public life to put something back. It should not be hard for him to make those points, because he believes them. They come from the head, but also from the heart. He simply needs to put his heart into it.

There is an obvious retort. What about Keir Starmer? Is he so very different? But there is a difference. Sir Keir finds it hard to say the words. After Labour’s heavy defeat at the Hartlepool by-election in 2021. When Keir Starmer considered standing down, Andrew Adonis gave his verdict on his leader: “[A] transitional figure – a nice man and a good human rights lawyer, but without political skills or antennae at the highest level.” Today, that assessment might raise a chuckle in the Starmer circle, but there is a simple explanation for this: Boris Johnson and Liz Truss. They have made him look good and may indeed have opened the way to Downing Street.

Yet the language is still uninspired, and there may be a reason. Tom Baldwin’s very recent biography of Sir Keir, though readable, raises more questions than it answers. After nearly 400 pages, we still do not know what the man believes. Though there are grounds for speculation: one suspects that he is much more of a socialist than he would find it safe to admit and that he is partly motivated by a social chip. He and Rachel Reeves have been working hard to woo the City, but one also suspects that she enjoys this more than he does. Anyone who feels it necessary to suppress many of his beliefs will find it hard to be eloquent.

When Rishi Sunak is roused, eloquence comes naturally to him and there is no need to suppress his beliefs. He ought to start by winning a few intellectual arguments, including with some of his own supporters, especially the Santa Claus tendency. These are characters who call for tax cuts now, irrespective of the fiscal position. The implication is that if Margaret Thatcher were prime minister, that is what she would do.

In the words of the late, great Bernard Ingham, that is bunkum and balderdash. She would never have countenanced unfunded tax cuts. Indeed, back in 1981 when we were in a fiscal crisis, and when taxes were increased by means of fiscal drag and failing to raise allowances, she wondered whether that would be enough and came close to raising tax rates. Fortunately, there will be none of that on Wednesday. Jeremy Hunt will be able to announce some judicious tax cuts. He should also explain why we are in difficulty. We had no sooner dealt with the mess inherited from Gordon Brown then along came Covid and Putin. This was the gravest crisis in peacetime history. It is hard to expect the public to applaud, but Hunt can try to persuade them that the government has neither flinched in the face of adversity nor agonised over the opinion polls. It merely did its duty.

There will be other criticisms, from the opposite political benches. How could the Chancellor even consider cutting taxes, Labour will say,  when every public service in this country is on the point of collapse? it is time to answer that, in a way that successive Tory administrations have consistently failed to do. Gentle reader, try an experiment on your acquaintances. Ask them how much the Government spends every year. Few of them will get it right. The true figure is over one trillion pounds a year, about £17,000 for every man woman or child in the country. You will find that disbelief is rapidly followed by outrage. With all that spending, why does so much go wrong? That is a fair criticism and Hunt is quick to acknowledge that there is far too much waste in the public sector.

This does not mean, as the Santa Claus-ites would have us believe, that spending cuts would immediately be used to pay for tax cuts. First, it takes time to identify waste. It is not as if there is a pot of gold under every civil servant’s desk. Waste should be dealt with, partly because it would encourage greater efficiency. More should also be done to restrict benefits to those who deserve them. But does anyone believe that we should spend less money on defence, education, health or the police? There are no easy answers.

Hunt should be able to defend his record. Equally, though the sunlit uplands are still some way off, there are distant vistas through the clouds. He will begin on the uphill task of convincing the voters that Labour cannot be trusted on the economy and that it should not be enough for his opponents to proclaim what they would not do. They could legitimately be accused of franchising their policy-making efforts to the focus groups. That is not sufficient for the government. 

Keir Starmer will also have to deal with one problem that his focus groups cannot solve. George Galloway was put on earth to make trouble. He has one asset which those who abhor him cannot fail to acknowledge. He is a powerful speaker – indeed an orator – at least as good as anyone else in the Commons. He will appeal to Labour’s id tendency: those who accept that they have to play down leftism, but sometimes hate themselves for doing so. The Starmerite superego will find it hard to crush every outbreak of Galloway-incited mayhem – while Sunak could afford to lessen restraints on the pleasure principle. He may now have learned how to fight.

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life