If Starmer is so untrustworthy, how can I vote Labour?
This Substack is almost three years old. In this time, I have repeatedly criticized Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour Party leader and, almost certainly, the next UK prime minister.
I regard Starmer as untrustworthy. In just a few years, he has praised Corbyn and Thatcher, opposed and accepted Brexit and condemned and commended gender-critical positions. His contradictory stances on antisemitism are glaring. In a 2021 post, I wondered how Starmer could reconcile his fight against antisemitism with his recent support for Corbyn,
‘The measures [against antisemitism] are laudable, yet raise critical questions about the character of Starmer. In the 2019 election, Starmer endorsed an agenda that is unacceptable in the current party…
I think that there was a serious problem [with antisemitism] in Labour, reflecting the values of the leadership, yet accept that there were alternative, legitimate perspectives. Jon Lansman, a Jewish Corbynite, adopted a reasonable position, conceding that there was a problem with antisemitism, but not regarding the Corbyn project as irredeemable. Though not made explicit, this was the pre-election position of Starmer. Had it been anything else, membership of the shadow cabinet would have been unfeasible.
But if one adopted this stance prior to the 2019 election, a similar position had to be assumed later. Lansman did this, arguing against the suspension of Corbyn. Harder positions were unfeasible, little time elapsing and few new facts emerging. Starmer did not adopt a similar stance. Rather, he performed a volte-face, removing the whip from Corbyn and introducing stringent disciplinary procedures… At the heart of the Starmer reforms, there is a painful paradox. The more Starmer does, the worse he looks.’
Others have developed such objections. In an important article, Obadiah Mbatang expands these points and notes problems with defences of Starmer. Short of clairvoyance, there is no way Starmer would have known that Corbyn would lose the 2019 election. Some make comparisons with the Labour Party of the 1980s – in this decade, the moderate Kinnock served under the left-wing Foot and later took the party to the centre – yet these are misplaced; compared to Corbyn, Foot was a moderate and patriot.
A few weeks ago, I shared these doubts with a group of students selling the Revolutionary Communist Party newspaper. Of course, they agreed; Starmer has inveterate left-wing critics, partly reflecting his duplicitous treatment of the Labour left. But to their surprise, I confessed that I would vote for Labour. Their response was obvious; if you do not trust Starmer, how can you want him to be prime minister?
At the time, I smiled and left with a newspaper. On reflection, I should elaborate my reasoning. Beyond constitutional issues – I am a Cardiff North voter and not choosing a president – one can take issue with the question. Primarily, the Labour leader executes the programme of the Labour Party – in this election, this programme is closest to my preferences – and the issue of his/her ethical motivations is secondary. For the prime minister, it is similar. Indeed, one can argue that ethics hinder the ability to represent diverse perspectives. I do not agree with this – ethics underpin coherent policy agendas and prevent one from doing terrible things (!) – yet it plants doubt. In fairness to Starmer, he is far from the only unscrupulous politician in Westminster.
Despite his record, it is difficult to believe that Starmer is a pure cynic. He has been engaged in left-wing politics for decades, editing a radical magazine as a student, and has moved in the professional and social circles which are typical of the soft left. As a barrister, he worked on human rights cases.
Few people are irredeemable cynics (even politicians!) and, in the absence of constraints, Starmer is likely to favour such positions. Of course, the influence of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) will be crucial. Famously, they restrained Corbyn and will keep Starmer on the soft left path which he seems to prefer.
In a 2022 piece, Helen Lewis pondered these issues. Though acknowledging that Starmer was ruthless – gender-critical feminists like Lewis are among the groups he has wronged – she emphasized his social-democratic credentials and came to a broadly charitable conclusion,
‘I certainly think he has a clear sense of what he wants—to be Labour leader, to be prime minister, to institute a competent social democratic government that is better than whatever the Tories are offering—and a clear sense of what can be thrown under the bus in pursuit of that goal.
I want to be opposed to that—and I suppose I should be, given the tyre marks on my face—but I also respect it. This guy wants to win.’
Though not as charitable as Lewis – I am unconvinced that Starmer is so motivated by principle – I agree with this broad assessment and, on 4 July, will vote Labour.
I suspect I will return to this topic. In office, we are likely to see more of Starmer’s ruthless side. Labour prime ministers often antagonize their party. The first Labour prime minister, Ramsay MacDonald, became a persona non grata after introducing spending cuts and, most recently, the Iraq War made Tony Blair a left-wing hate figure. Should politics require it, Starmer will probably do something which is similarly controversial.
The coming Labour government will tell us more about Starmer’s character. Whether his actions will be to the benefit of country and party is another question.
If you enjoyed reading this, do think about subscribing! Subscription is free – all it means is that you’ll receive a weekly email. But every new subscriber makes me very happy 😊 😊 😊
Interesting. Starmer is not to be trusted on individual issues or things he says, but I - and I think Lewis, and you - fundamentally trust him, on another level, to run the country right. Not to do all the things we'd want him to, of course, but, well, what Helen said.
Your opinion of Keir Starmer is shared by me, and also millions of British voters who are critical of KS from both his left and his right but will vote for him anyway for sheer lack of alternatives.
I think the thing that concerns me most, as a believer in democracy, is the lack of ideological diversity the 2024-29 parliament is likely to have. There aren't going to be that many Tories in the chamber, and Starmer has been ruthless about his own party's left flank, leaving the parliament dominated by a relatively narrow segment of the political spectrum. Even though that's also the bit of the spectrum I inhabit, I still don't think such homogeneity is good for representation or governance.