Winston Churchill disparagingly called post-war Labor leader Clement Atlee "a sheep in sheep's clothing" and "a modest man with much reason to be." It is the same opinion that Keir Starmer deserves, not only from the Conservatives, but from many Labor supporters who do not see him capable of conquering 10 Downing Street unless Johnson gives him the keys in a box with a card dedicated and a bow.
Starmer conquered the leadership of the party two years ago assuming a Corbynism (more or less radical left), but without Corbyn, to be recycled soon after as a sponsor of a Blairism (centre right) without Blair. The former attorney general of the kingdom swims between two waters without knowing very well in which direction he is going, with the fundamental objective of not offending anyone, although he does not excite almost anyone either.
When Boris Johnson won an absolute majority of 80 seats in December 2019, and Labor one of the worst results in its entire history, political scientists assumed that the main opposition party would need at least eight years (and maybe twelve) to achieve power; so deep was the hole he had crawled into. And that Starmer's mission, like that of Neil Kinnock before Blair, was limited to "detoxifying" the brand and ending the anti-Semitism that Corbyn was accused of and had sacrificed countless Jewish votes for.
That has been achieved, although little else. But what nobody contemplated two years ago was the level of self-destruction that Boris Johnson and the Tories have been capable of, the degree of arrogance and sense of superiority that the illegal parties in Downing Street mean, the treatment of voters as if they were fools , the general incompetence of the Government, the lack of direction, the lack of solutions to the economic crisis, the inability to take the slightest advantage of Brexit. Not to mention the pandemic and the war in Ukraine.
The consequence is that Starmer, without doing anything on his part and perceived as a bland, the most boring of leaders, with the spirit more of the director of an NGO than the head of a party, can find himself with an empty goal and score a goal almost effortlessly. He plays the political equivalent of bolt in football. He is neutral in everything. Republican but without questioning the monarchy, he is neither for nor against the strikes, he does not want to reopen the Pandora's box of Brexit, to the point that he rules out re-entry into the EU and even the single market, and the recovery of freedom of movement. He condemns the policy of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda, but vows to crack down on immigration. He assumes the patriotic and law-and-order language of the Tories. He is in favor of public spending to get out of the crisis, but so is Johnson. His only signature policy was a tax on energy company profits, and Downing Street has stolen it. Of course, during the pandemic he asked for an even more severe confinement, without caring about the indebtedness and the economic consequences. He embraces the nanny state and is hesitant to say what a woman is.
After the financial crisis of 2008, many analysts predicted the end of liberal capitalism and that voters would bet on more regulations and social democracy. But it was not like that. Now it is said that the current crisis (inflation, cost of living, interest rate hikes, breakdown of supply chains...) is the end of the Thatcherite model of investment, consumption and housing bubble, instead of productivity and investment. And that in 2024, Labor will only have to be there to score empty goals, and even the most clumsy of strikers would take advantage of the occasion.
But within Labor not everyone is so sure. The results of last Thursday's by-elections suggest that the electorate, rather than supporting the opposition, mobilized against the Conservatives and punished Johnson. In the past, Labor has won when it has had a charismatic leader with a moderate agenda (Blair), or a boring leader with a radical agenda (Atlee). But not with a left-wing project and a socialist leader (Corbyn), nor with a center-right platform and a leader without a hook (Kinnock). Will Starmer change that pattern?
