There is a semi-plausible literary reference in the title, but I will come back to it.
Writing on the current debacle runs the risk of being relevant for 10 minutes before the next twist. But still.
I voted for Labour in 2024. I thought that Starmer would be strong and purposeful, with Labour driving through change that would benefit all sections of UK society. The stonking General Election majority only amplified my expectations. How wrong was I to be so optimistic.
In no time it was government by blaming the Party before - 'Fourteen years of Tory chaos'. ('MPs, remember to parrot that line when you are interviewed'). That holds good for a few months, but for two years plus? 'Can't you focus on what you are achieving?'
And just like the lot before, government by blaming external events. Fair enough that external events get in the way, and they sure have in 2024-2026. But isn't leadership about, to some extent, pushing forward notwithstanding external pressures. Which party would be brave enough to say that their manifesto promises were all subject to have a nice, quiet period in global geo-political relations.
That 'subject to'. The caveat. So Starmer. So lawyer. And I register the Starmer caveats immediately. Because I am a lawyer by profession. And I have used those caveats, knowing that I can almost instantly be profiled.
Our Keir was at it again in his big reset speech. Full public ownership of Scunthorpe steelworks, 'subject to the public interest test being met'. An enraged Labour backbencher jumped up immediately, with words to the effect that Labour has a bloody great majority so why can't Starmer bloody well say that they are going to do it. (That would be leadership). Instead (and again I sense the thinking) we have the lawyer concerned not to commit professional negligence.
Steady, solid, reliable Keir. Not charismatic, but does that matter? Apparently so, to some. Which does make me laugh. In Boris Johnson we had a superfluity of charisma....alongside a load of deficiencies which ultimately did for him. Do we want superperson? I guess we do, although you only have to read Anthony Seldon's works on British Prime Ministers to see how high the bar is for greatness.
Still never mind, the solid reliable type can at least have good judgement. Oops - appointment of Peter Mandelson as British Ambassador to the US. Outright risk-taking, as if the PM had shoved a bet on a 20/1 shot at Lingfield. We will not know what went on in his head. Maybe desperation to stay close to Trump, in an area of foreign policy where Starmer felt he was doing well. Maybe more than that, a hubristic belief that he held sway with POTUS. Don't know.
Without arguing that a PM has to have egotist charisma, at least the incumbent has to present policies in a convincing way, so to a degree, presentation beats substance. Ronald Reagan, 'the great communicator", had it; Nigel Farage, to the disgust of many, has it. Our current person at the top? Nope.
Thus the Local Election doorstep a'tipathy, an anti-feeling devoid of deep analysis of the problems. Back to Reagan, who magnificently coined "Are you better off than you were four years ago?', playing to feeling on his way to defeating Jimmy Carter for the US Presidency.
So to the reset speech. Who told him that he should trot out again his working class background. Maybe he told himself, but anyway, in 'The Sun' terms, 'Boring, boring, we've heard all that before.', ie it has been discounted. By way of brave announcements we had steel, as discussed above (where Labour previous core vote almost certainly thought we had already done the nationalisation, if they thought about it at all). And something about getting closer to Europe, without of course breaking pledges not to rejoin the Single Market or the Customs Union. Good old Starmer constructive ambiguity, which he taught Jeremy Corbyn so that Corbyn could stay out of the Leave camp whilst inwardly detesting the EU as an encumbrance on his vision of Socialist Britain.
What cuts through is plain speaking - that is what Farage does, whatever you might think of his politics. And sometimes in these few days of mayhem, some plain talk flashes up, for example the MP who pointed out that reviving some form of the Erasmus scheme so that Piers can have a year doing history of art in Florence, isn't going to wow people on the doorsteps of Red Wall constituencies.
Coming to a close, two examples of plain speaking with names attributed:
1. 'Newsnight' yesterday: Labour backbencher Jonathan Hinder. Victoria Derbyshire, in interests of balance, puts to Hinder that Labour won in 2024 with a massive majority, so surely some credit to Starmer? Hinder retorts that Labour (led by Starmer), didn't win it, the Conservatives lost it. Or, my reference, as YouGov have written, 'By far the most common reason for backing Labour is simply disdain for the Conservatives'.
2. Jess Phillips' resignation letter where, focussing on her area of ministerial responsibility without relying entirely on politician speak, she castigated Starmer's refusal to be bold and legislate to stop children being able to take naked pictures of themselves. PS She also reiterated the telling phrase: 'Labour governments come around rarely', and I reckon that this is what is leading the fear held by so many Labour MPs.
I have not forgotten about my title. It is a reference to Animal Farm. Any sense of getting close? Starmer has vowed to carry aka plod on. He will redouble his efforts. And Orwell's carthorse, Boxer promised 'I will work harder!',, as his personal motto.
My image starts to fail in substance once you recall that Boxer represented the exploited working class manipulated by an elite, but superficially at least I think it has some attraction.
And we all know what happened to Boxer.
.........
The author is a writer, speaker, historian, occasional tour guide, and former Managing Partner of a City law firm