Keir starmer’s identity crisis is also labour’s | thearticle

It is often said of the most notorious politicians of former days that, despite their wildcard views, at least “you knew what they stood for”. Such frankness from leaders can, of course, go

either way. Jeremy Corbyn never did himself many favours whenever his true views were revealed, and garnered all of his temporary popularity from the recycled slogan and the games of public

messaging. Whereas Corbyn’s plainly-stated views only hardened opposition from those normally keen on independence of mind, figures like Nigel Farage often inspire admiration from the Right

for their “ordinary” touch, the ability to project an image that comes across as realistic, if nothing else. Hard-hitting and simple are the mantras of the populist. They are not natural

characteristics of Sir Keir Starmer. Last week’s Labour conference was, behind the paraphernalia of policy and exultant rhetoric, an embarrassment. This is not to say that embarrassment is a

bad thing; high debates display a party of life as opposed to the dreary subservience of too many Tories to their leader this week. Yet it is still remarkable to observe the deeply

fractured nature of the Labour Party, more than eleven years since it last held sway in Downing Street. This was visibly a movement still riven by personality feuds and intense resentments,

one whose bitterly disputed direction is spelt out most clearly by hecklers and public spats. Once again, it was not the leader who dominated his conference but those around him: Angela

Rayner refusing to back down over her labelling of opponents as “scum” and the resignation of a disillusioned Shadow minister in Andy MacDonald. It was still a sorry sight of a party which

shows precious little resemblance to the heady freshness of Blair and Mandelson two-and-a-half decades ago, or even Harold Wilson’s “white heat” of technological revolution, which Starmer

tried to evoke as well. It was a medley of the old hits rather than a chart-topping new single. And that example is what has left Starmer in such straits eighteen months into the job. His

party is intrinsically divided between those who think they know how the country can be won over and those who know how they really would like to run the country. Essentially, the Labour

Party doesn’t know whether it is a socialist party or not, or one that supports “woke” activism or climate protest movements or vaccine regulations or full asylum rights. Worse, it has less

of an idea of how to communicate: torn in Starmer’s case largely between principle and necessity, between trying to articulate its own radical ideas and shifting to the increasingly

polarised mores of the time. For all the electoral benefits that harking back to Blair might bring with it, such appeals cannot hide the plain inability of the present leader to define his

own image and programme. Historical comparison betrays a present stasis. The promises which galvanised millions of first-time Labour voters whipped up in Blair-mania are not the same things

to which a beleaguered and more conservative British public will take kindly today. Swiping the dust off Peter Mandelson’s template for victory at the polls, whether in focusing on education

or crime policy and ostracising the extreme Left, will get Starmer only so far. The aim is to be the leader of the moment, who is able to discern the real public consciousness, and then to

combine it with their own agenda. The most revealing takeaway of Starmer’s incredibly long lecture was a fundamental inability to do this. In trying to reconcile the competing identities of

his party, Sir Keir merely took up the mantle of a predecessor, who had reacted purely to the political and popular mood of his time. Such nostalgia for New Labour’s blissful days will only

make for the white nights of Starmer’s Labour. “I believe in this country and I believe we will go forward.” That such a bland and tedious punchline for this speech was not even Starmer’s

own (borrowed as it is from Hillary Clinton) makes plain the desperate struggle for new ideas which has plagued Starmer’s time in Opposition. He has never made the news, only responded to

it, and too often with little impact at that. His struggles to solve the party’s intractable rifts over image and identity reveal the lack of the same personal vigour in the leader. I

suspect most Labour members who voted him in early last year will know it was done with little enthusiasm or high expectation; he was there to marshal the recovery and bring the party back

from a seemingly terminal abyss with the lawyerly studiousness required. Starmer was never a man of new ideas, inspiring orations or electoral whirlwinds. Labour’s identity crisis is also

his own. Most honest senior Labour figures have realised this; that the honourable and decent former DPP will not be the one to prosecute the most damning case against any Tory government.

And that a reform of the legal team, whatever the personal struggles it comes with, is needed to take the argument anywhere nearer to winning over a tired and as yet tepid and unenlightened

jury. British politics looks in many unnerving ways to be entering a period of calm not seen since before the Brexit referendum six years ago. Progressive parties have recently scored narrow

victories in Canada and Germany, while Emmanuel Macron has a very good chance of another five years of important reform in France. He embodies at least one serious liberal bulwark in

Western Europe in the face of conservative autocrats to the east and their slightly less malignant counterparts on these shores. Calm, then, should breed progressive success for a less

doctrinaire and culture-war-ridden Labour Party with a leader few would describe as either a dangerous fanatic or a stirring visionary: a good man leading a fractious political party whose

soul he has yet to find. Among those who are still serious about such a progressive surge over here, there is an increasing realisation that Keir Starmer will not be the person to create it,

even if many of his more assertive comrades present even slimmer hopes. As ever, labelling opponents as “scum” and presenting the usual show of squabbling internal warfare will not do much

to help. What will do are some new ideas from their increasingly bereft leader. With the conference we have been treated to over the last week, any chances of them are as scarce as Angela

Rayner enjoying a drink with Norman Tebbit. A MESSAGE FROM THEARTICLE _We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one

that’s needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout the pandemic. So please, make a donation._