It’s time to choose, Sir Keir, what kind of leader will you be?
IT FEELS as though there is no such thing as a surprise anymore. Lenin said that there are decades when nothing happens, and weeks when decades happen. The last ten years of politics around the globe, in Britain and in Scotland have felt like one decade after another.
In Scotland, a nationalist majority at Holyrood and the referendum which followed; events of real national significance which to this day have left a scar, perhaps a chasm, on our politics and our society. In the UK, an almost accidental referendum on EU membership with an unexpected victory for Leave; another generationally significant event. Around the world, the rise of populism and the election of Donald Trump to the US presidency, a concept which seemed ridiculous and literally unbelievable until just before it actually happened.
And now, of course, abruptly, coronavirus. An unknown death toll. A feared second wave. And a global economy in the bin, with perhaps decadeslong consequences for public and domestic finances, and for the way that politics and economic works.
I have omitted one other item of domestic significance – the five years of Jeremy Corbyn as the leader of the Opposition. When New Labour left office in 2010, after a 13-year term which, ignoring the usual party political fingerpointing, was at least perfectly competent, and which contained four events of historical significance (the scrapping of Clause 4, the minimum wage, Iraq and the banking crash).
There was no indication, at that point, that one more election defeat would provoke the knee-jerk reaction of having Mr Corbyn as leader. It is, by any standards, historically remarkable that the country has twice been asked to make its Prime Minister a man with what can most charitably be termed a controversial relationship with terrorists in Ireland and the Middle East, and with a litany of Communist dictators both to our east and to our west.
Step in Sir Keir Starmer, elected as Mr Corbyn’s replacement at the weekend. His election, I must concede, came as a pleasant surprise to me. I had presumed that the Labour party had been changed forever; filled with Corbynistas and Momentum activists and destined to choose a Corbyn disciple as its leader.
But just as Mr Blair’s changes were shown not to be permanent, so Mr Corbyn’s seem to have been transient. The big question now, for the Labour party and for the country, is what does Sir Keir do? What Sir Keir do we get? And can Sir Keir reverse the damage done to our political discourse by those whom he has just defeated?
On that final point, it is easy to think (hope?) that the reversal can be instantaneous. Following a Skype call to Jewish leaders immediately after his election, Sir Keir won their praise for “achieving in four days more than his predecessor in four years in addressing anti-semitism in the Labour party”.
This was heartening. But will it materialise? After all, the promoters of anti-semitism and other vitriol have not gone anywhere, at least not yet.
In the push-back against anti-semitism, as in many other areas, so much depends on the steeliness of Sir Keir himself. He has a career-defining decision to make – does he continue to pander to that element of his party, as he did during the leadership election in order to secure their votes, or does he reject them and ready himself to defeat them when they inevitably turn on him?
This fundamental decision, and Sir Keir’s preparedness to make difficult choices, will likely shape his leadership over the next five years, and with it his prospects of entering Downing Street at some point during 2024.
Should he forge his own path, he has the genesis of a radical platform which could reshape the country in two fundamental ways. The first is the structure of the economy and, by implication, society.
Coronavirus is certain to present governments all over the world with an economic problem countries experience only after a once-in-a-century event such as war or, in this case, pandemic. The UK Government is currently wielding the enormous power of the state, but continuing to do so as a method of facilitating the economic recovery is likely to be the road to ruin.
Sir Keir would be well advised to reject outright his predecessor’s student socialism; instead he could be better placed than anyone to reinvent capitalism for a post-coronavirus environment. He might choose to repurpose the philosophy of his social democratic background and look at how he may be able to use the private sector for a social purpose.
How might private medicine, for instance, be used in partnership with the state to offer a better service to the public? How might the housebuilding sector be better aligned with the planning process to create the new homes that governments always talk about but never deliver? How might the large energy companies be utilised to create the domestic electric car charging network which governments accept we need but are probably too clumsy to deliver?
These are big concepts and big questions which Sir Keir needs to answer if he is to take on a Prime Minister who has, as a result of coronavirus, become a Tory who throws money around like confetti and lauds the power of state intervention, not to mention one who is enjoying massive approval ratings.
The second fundamental change which Sir Keir has explicitly promoted relates to the UK’S constitutional structure. Federalism is a word to which everyone ascribes a different meaning, and it is far from clear what Sir Keir’s interpretation is.
However, what everyone agrees on is that it sits somewhere between our constitutional status quo and independence. By simply positioning himself on that admittedly woolly ground, he positions himself in the same territory as most people in Scotland, as threequestion polling has consistently shown.
It will be up to Ian Murray, the reinstated Shadow Scottish Secretary who has forged a deserved reputation as a moderate and thoughtful force in the party, to put some much-needed flesh on these bones.
Mr Murray’s consistent and clear opposition to Mr Corbyn has made him a figure of distaste for that side of his party. But in politics, the winner takes it all. And in creating a narrative for Sir Keir’s federalist agenda, Mr Murray will immediately move on to bigger things.
Sir Keir’s preparedness to make difficult choices will likely shape his leadership, and with it his prospects of entering Downing Street