Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Can you imagine what this week would have been like if Jeremy was still in charge? This was the question asked by any number of Labour conference goers. Well, we don’t have to imagine it. We can remember the gathering at the same venue in Liverpool five years ago under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. We remember the Palestinian flags filling the hall as he spoke and barely a Union Jack. We remember the foaming hostility towards Jewish MPs which saw one of them, Luciana Berger, forced to attend her own conference under police escort.
Had the murderous assault on Israel come during that era, instead of trenchant and unambiguous denunciations of Hamas by Keir Starmer and his team we would have seen mealy-mouthed expressions of regret dashed off so the leadership could get to the “but”. No doubt we would have seen similar weasel words the year before on Ukraine.
You could still find some of those people this week, but mostly outside the conference zone. There was the odd demonstrator, fringe meeting and apologist MP, but the tone was set by Starmer. There must be, and is, room for reasoned support for the Palestinians. But that is a world apart from a demented reflexive apologia for every murderous manifestation of that cause.
Starmer’s success in purging his party of Corbynism has been so total it is now barely remarked upon. There are those who cannot forgive his complicity in that era. While others on his front bench team refused to serve under Corbyn, Starmer did. But, boy, has he made up for lost time.
It is the nature of politics, certainly Labour politics, that the membership would only have elected a leader who had not publicly fought Corbyn. If the price of the party’s decontamination is that it required someone whose own hands were not entirely clean to carry it out, it was a price worth paying. The only viable alternative would have been to wait another parliamentary cycle for someone untainted.
So it is no exaggeration to say Starmer saved the Labour party. Many will argue with Labour’s policies. Yet more retain doubts about him. But one fact is undeniable. The first task of an opposition is to ensure the voters have a viable choice. Labour is electable and the credit for that is his. None of this is a reason to put him in power. There are not, nor should there be, any prizes for ridding your party of extremists. Voters consider this a precondition. But it is a lot harder than Starmer made it look — as the Tories may be about to discover.
And it gets you a hearing. Neil Kinnock once reminded an earlier Labour conference that elections are “not won in weeks, they are won in years”. Starmer has addressed “why not the Conservatives?” but is just beginning on “why Labour?” Inevitably the conference will be entirely overshadowed by events elsewhere but it has started to sketch out a case that goes beyond “we’re not the Tories”. His leader’s speech remained thematic, but if it was light on details it was stronger on values and the most notable feature was the contrast with Rishi Sunak last week.
While the prime minister’s speech was parochial, intentionally divisive and aimed at shoring up a core vote, Starmer’s was national and inclusive. Many themes were familiar, though the commitment to housing building and new towns was welcome. How extraordinary that after decades as the party of the homeowner the Tories have left this space vacant for their rivals.
There’s plenty for critics to pick at with Starmer’s Labour. He is much criticised for shifting his position on issues, not least on Brexit — barely mentioned this week. The barnstorming speech of his shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves will disappoint those who want higher spending. A dissection of policies will throw up numerous questions. Dire public finances will severely limit the ambition on infrastructure and investment. In truth we won’t know the true nature of an incoming government till we see it.
But perhaps the most interesting aspect was Starmer’s attempt to fit his own persona to the mood of the country. Lamenting the chaos of recent years, Starmer proclaimed those quietly making the best of their lives often in difficult circumstances. The qualities he holds up are duty, respect and the concept of service. Having “dragged this party back to service” he will, he promises, be just as dogged with Nimby building-blockers and other obstacles to reform.
Starmer’s success so far has been built on determination, some rapid shifts of position and a focus on moderation. He was never going to complete the final furlong on raw charisma but if he seems stolid, perhaps this matches the times.
There is no spirit of optimism to carry Labour to power as there was in 1997. The national mood is of fatigue, of worry, of wondering what has happened to the country and how it can bounce back. Strip away the rhetoric and Starmer’s answer is: slowly. His version of change comes with spoonfuls of reassurance. He doesn’t do sparkly, even when covered in glitter by a protester. His offer is a mechanic, not a magician.
Before this conference many, including me, argued that Starmer had to find a way to offer hope to the country. His response, after the excitements of Brexit, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, is a team of serious, grounded, steady people eschewing easy soaring rhetoric for the language of hard yards and moderate progress. Perhaps after the last four years, that is what hope looks like.
Leave a Reply