His is not the behaviour of a leader confident in his mandate, but of one terrified of comparison. The post Ted Newson: Starmer is a uniquely useless technocrat appeared first on Conservative Home.
Ted Newson is a political commentator with Young Voices UK.
Whenever faced with a difficult choice, Keir Starmer seems uniquely capable of making the worst of a good option. For example, while the prospect of Andy Burnham challenging him for the leadership was tricky, it could also have presented an opportunity to show strength.
By suggesting to the NEC that Burnham should be approved as a by-election candidate, Starmer could have sidelined him with an unpopular ministerial position if he won – keeping him on the backfoot and bound by ministerial loyalty.
But this is not what he did, leaving his credibility much less stable with the left of the party. The mere possibility of Andy Burnham returning to frontline politics has been enough to expose Starmer’s insecurity. Rather than risking a popular figure testing his support through a by-election, the leadership has opted for bureaucratic exclusion. This is not the behaviour of a leader confident in his mandate, but of one terrified of comparison.
When it comes to political decision-making, Starmer is a paper tiger. When displaying himself on the world stage, much like the over-bureaucratic EU, the Prime Minister rarely gets beyond “thinking of condemning” political events, “in the strongest possible terms”. Previous examples of our universally disliked PM being a ‘strongman’ include telling Donald Trump it was “wrong” to discuss invading Greenland, and branding Trump’s remarks on British forces in Afghanistan “appalling” – a move Chris Mason described as his “strongest rebuke yet.”
So, yes, Starmer lags behind public opinion in most cases, with his statements amounting to little more than watered-down versions of whatever his advisers tell him the public is thinking. But then again, he has never considered himself a strongman.
In British politics, there tend to be two kinds of leaders: populists who leave detail to others while excelling on the campaign trail (think Johnson or Churchill) and detail-oriented operators who track every part of government and possess the technical knowledge to justify their vision (think May or Sunak). The strongmen possess enough flair to make the electorate forget their lack of detailed policy knowledge. The technocrats, by contrast, have the in-depth know-how to justify their rigid speeches and awkward public appearances.
Keir Starmer is neither. While it is obvious that he desperately wants to be the level-headed technocrat who will get Britain back on track, he falls short on every metric. First, he does not trust his cabinet to get on with their own jobs, fearing they may become too popular and eclipse him. Additionally, despite styling himself as a champion of human rights (being a former human rights lawyer and DPP), he has clamped down on free speech, self-determination, and the right to protest.
What makes Starmer dangerous is not any guiding ideology but a striking indifference to the will of the British people. On Brexit, he seeks to draw Britain ever closer to Europe while simultaneously pursuing the generational smoking ban and a (thankfully defanged) national ID scheme. He is a collectivist who places more faith in sweeping international charters and statutes than he does in the fundamental rights of the individual, and who is willing to compromise those rights at the drop of a hat if it serves the interests of international law.
Aside from running the country, one of the main tasks of a successful leader is the ability to muster a core support base. Someone who can keep the party’s vote share buoyant and maintain a group of supporters excited about the next round of policy announcements.
In less than two years, Keir Starmer has blown up the Labour Party from the inside, achieving something the Conservative Party has failed to do since Labour’s inception. Labour hasn’t performed worse in Politico’s ‘Poll of Polls’ since records began in January 2014. For years to come, he will have smashed the party’s credibility among both centrists and socialists, leaving it destined for obliteration in 2029 – if the government resists calls for an earlier election.
Even among notoriously bad Labour Party politicians, Starmer remains by far the most hated. According to YouGov, Sadiq Khan has a net approval rating of -21 per cent, while Starmer languishes at an abysmal -45 per cent, with over 60 per cent of respondents viewing him unfavourably. It is a moment of genuine national surprise when he announces anything positive for the UK such as a new trade deal with the US.
The phrase “Labour governs Britain like it hates it” has never rung so true.
As a better-liked politician with a stronger record continues to loom in Andy Burnham, one almost begins to feel sorry for Starmer. He has the grey style of a technocrat, with none of the substance. While Burnham can sell the idea of state-funded social mobility (however unfeasible that may be), his message cuts through with ordinary people anxious about bills and their children’s future. Starmer cannot do that.
His managerial attitude towards suffering people comes across as hollow and robotic, lacking sympathy in favour of a ruthless pursuit of a further broken Britain. Any change of leader would likely reassure Labour supporters more than most, but ever-unpopular, Starmer is unwilling to even allow a possible opponent to stand.
Could Burnham make a better leader if he got the chance? Almost certainly not. He would likely encourage massive spending expansions at a time of sky-high taxation, expanding the state far beyond what it can sustain. But he possesses something Starmer can only dream of – a genuine demeanour, a clear vision for the future, and a solid base of support.
The post Ted Newson: Starmer is a uniquely useless technocrat appeared first on Conservative Home.
