Starmer’s display of intellectual dishonesty has backfired

A couple of generations ago, a cheeky schoolboy once said that a lie was an abomination unto the Lord, but could be a useful way to get out of trouble. One might draw a comparison with intellectual dishonesty in politics. Obviously, it is morally deplorable. But cunningly deployed, it can be effective. Keir Starmer has failed that test.

Yvette Cooper is at least as able as anyone on the Labour front bench. In recent years, however, she has often given the impression that something was holding her back. She seemed to have lost her zest for political combat. Once Jeremy Corbyn had been replaced, one might have thought that this would change: not really so. Although she did return to the Shadow Cabinet, where was the enthusiasm? One or two people have speculated that she regrets not losing her seat – as her husband Ed Balls had – which would have propelled her into a more congenial career. Thirteen years ago, she was a hugely promising young Minister on the verge of one of the great offices. Since then, thirteen years in Opposition. That can be a soul-destroying experience. This may explain why she seems content to be better known as the wife of the famous TV contestant.

Emily Thornberry is just about as silly as anyone on the Labour front bench. She is best-known for sneering at a white-van man family who took a patriotic pride in flaunting the Union Jack. It seemed never to have occurred to her that people from their socio-economic group had been known to vote Labour. Apropos wives, Thornberry’s husband is a High Court Judge. They live in Islington. It may be that she believes in assembling a winning coalition for Labour, based on the husbands and wives of prominent lawyers and judges. There is an obvious response to Thornberry’s opinions: that if he were feeling chivalrous, anyone interested in creating a serious electoral strategy for Labour might listen politely to her, without taking any notice of her views.

Let us imagine that you are a young Labour communications apparatchik, trying to prove that you are more than the small change for Peter Mandelson. You begin by advocating a fierce personal attack on Rishi Sunak, starting with crime and punishment and moving on to other areas. You surely start by consulting the Shadow Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, to hear what she thinks: we know that she can. You emphatically do not make Cooper wait to find out from the media. She was clearly annoyed. as was another sensible Labour front-bencher, Lucy Powell. There is also a lot of anonymous dismay. Thornberry, who was involved from the beginning, appeared to have enjoyed every minute: no dismay there. Perhaps she hoped to prove her populist credentials by sounding tough on law and order.

This is where the intellectual dishonesty comes in. In his brief period in office, Rishi Sunak cannot have been expected to revise the sentencing guidelines for sexual offences. These have evolved over around twenty years, under Governments of both parties, with guidance from judges – and probably from Directors of Public Prosecutions, including a chap called Keir Starmer. There is absolutely no evidence that Sunak is in favour of greater leniency for sex offenders.

The Labour strategist could reinforce dishonesty with cynicism, insisting that it does not matter what the truth is, as long as people swallow the lie. Goebbels had a similar approach. But even before serious Labour figures displayed their unhappiness, this was not a credible lie. It was inevitable that much of the media would refuse to be persuaded. Some of them will draw a couple of obvious conclusions, neither of which will be helpful to Labour.

The first is that Sir Keir may not be in control of his own communications strategy. The second, that Labour is becoming afraid of Rishi Sunak. When he became PM, he was young, inexperienced and largely unknown. His immediate predecessors had left an unholy mess. Big boots to fill, crises to confront: might he too be swept aside? There is a resounding answer to that: no. Rishi Sunak is leading his party back to the battlefield, and an increasing number of his troops are enjoying the experience. Hard fighting is in prospect, but there is no longer the certainty of defeat.

Let us therefore pause to express some sympathy for Sir Keir Starmer. On the whole, he is an honourable fellow with a certain wooden decency which could have served him well, against Boris Johnson. Sir Keir might well have assumed that charlatanry would have its limits and that when the Johnson Soufflé had collapsed, there would be no resurrection from that emptiness. But unless the Tory party goes mad – never an absolute impossibility – the weapons which Starmer would have deployed against Boris will seem increasingly irrelevant. So he may have decided to get his retaliation in first, a tactic not unknown on the rugger field. There is one problem with that. It is not in his nature. If Sir Keir had played rugby and had tried to get his retaliation in first, he would have made a total cock of it and ended up being jeered to the sin-bin. 

Sir Keir has another difficulty, which is indeed an apparent vacuum. What does he actually believe? He would like to persuade the public that he could do a better job that Sunak – hence the smears. But they could easily come across as desperation, not conviction. Equally, to switch sporting analogies, Rishi Sunak is still in the first phase of building an innings. He has not yet displayed his full powers, which include toughness. Keir Starmer undoubtedly believes that he deserves to win and he certainly wants to win. But, as obstreperously demanding children were sometimes told: “I want never gets.'” A final sporting reference: there is also the abiding suspicion that Sir Stumbler is always being forced to play away – that he is actually significantly more left-wing than he feels it safe to admit. This would explain the tactical and strategic awkwardness.

So there are a range of reasons which explain why the Labour Leader’s Easter message flopped. They also suggest that there will be more flops to come.

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