From Burnham to Beijing; Will Starmer’s Legacy be as the Avoider of Hard Choices?

Image - Simon Dawson

‍

Political theorists and commentators familiar with Keir Starmer’s form of leadership have long tried to categorise the Prime Minister into an ideological ‘box’ within which his tenure can be evaluated. For some, his party’s reinvigorated emphasis on ‘Middle England’  is a continuation of the New Labour project; for others, his rupture from Blairist anti-interventionism more resembles Corbyn; for most however, his focus on pragmatic agenda-setting and an aversion to grand provocations has placed him in the box of the ‘ideologically quiet’.

‍

Starmer’s electoral strategy in itself was not necessarily unwise. His emphasis on attracting a broad coalition of voters to break the spell of 4 consecutive electoral defeats through discussion and prudence allowed him to walk into Westminster virtually unopposed- but such fluidity comes at a cost. Labour’s difficulties in maintaining post-election popularity or the sustained economic support of the OBR and the bond market is in part rooted in the simple fact that the British electorate still do not entirely know what Starmer stands for, nor whether he is capable of making tough decisions.

‍

A year and half from his appointment, Starmer’s- and Labour’s- inability to lead the national narrative has resulted in numerous government U-turns, underwhelming budgets, and a precarious balancing act where Starmer grapples with the imminent deterioration of the global order, half-heartedly attempts to forge closer relations with the EU (the orders most enthusiastic defender) whilst simultaneously appeasing its destroyer in Trump.

‍

Starmer has managed to level sporadic criticisms at the US President, most recently last week for belittling the role of UK armed forces in Afghanistan, but these are weak and illy articulated, often without the corresponding economic and military warnings that one would expect to be made to a nation threatening to invade the sovereign territory of an ally. He also criminally fails to connect individual offences to a broader critique of the President’s growing authoritarian inclinations. Here his indecisiveness is exhibited openly; he appears a man in 2 minds, flitting between clinging references to the ‘special’ Trans-Atlantic relationship that is clearly not respected by those in Washington, whilst too pallid to stake any meaningful allegiance to cooperation with partners in Brussels.

‍

Starmer’s understanding that the UK-US relationship is irrevocably fraying lies short of leading to any tangible shift in foreign policy, but is strong enough to initiate a re-warming of relations with Beijing, where Starmer this week visits as the first PM since 2018. Again, Starmer is well aware of Xi Jinping’s doctrinal opposition to democracy, his support for Vladimir Putin and the dismantling of civil rights in Hong Kong, as is he trepid to appear too friendly and fear invoking the wrath of Trump, a fate that befell Mark Carney earlier this week when he signed a trade agreement lowering tariffs on the Chinese electric automobile industry. But again he falters on making the tough choices and committing to a path that would signal clarity and strength, instead giving consent to the Chinese mega-embassy that has clear national security concerns.

‍

But nowhere is Starmer’s hesitancy more visible than domestically, where Manchester Mayor and Party favourite Andy Burnham was recently barred for running in a by-election. At a time where the Parliamentary Labour Party is in vital need of good PR, turning Burnham away signifies a level of strategic ambiguity and a vacillating tentativeness for risk that will be hard to shed.

‍

For Labour to succeed, difficult choices must be made. Wavering and fluctuating on policy does nothing but to deprive the country of a national sense of mission and identity that serves only to embolden opponents. But Starmer is the PM who doesn’t do politics, doesn’t do difficult choices. Such indecisiveness has already failed at home, and whilst abroad measured pragmatism is still welcome, the international system is heading in a direction where it is only a matter of time before it fails there too.