Labour needs a nasty streak
David Brent from Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant’s The Office
Everyone wants to be loved. In Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant’s The Office, David Brent attempts to be an effective manager while simultaneously being adored by his workforce. In the end, he achieves neither and is swiftly replaced by Gareth Keenan, the Assistant (to the) Regional Manager, who can only be described as a dweeby stickler for the rules. And as elections are, at their core, popularity contests, there’s a lesson in there somewhere for Labour about trying too hard to be loved.
As you will know, Labour is enjoying a sustained lead in the polls after a series of scandals and unforced errors that have damaged Boris Johnson’s premiership, perhaps fatally. The chaos at No.10 has also been a gift in helping reposition Starmer’s weaknesses as an asset. Slightly dull and managerial yes, but a safe pair of hands to steady the ship. While some on the Conservative benches will console themselves that Boris, or his successor, will restore the natural order, the progress that Labour is making is now feeling underpriced. Putting polls to one side, Keir Starmer is slowly but surely improving on the job as Leader of the Opposition - his performance in the Commons in his response to the Sue Gray ‘update’ was comfortably his best yet. The reshuffle towards the end of last year has brought together a stronger front bench, there has been tangible progress made on antisemitism issues and the far left have successfully been frozen out.
But more needs to be done to convince the public that Labour really are up to the job of running the country and not just deserving of a hypothetical vote when contacted by a pollster. During the Conservative wilderness years, Theresa May famously said the Conservatives needed to rid themselves or their ‘nasty party’ image to ever win back power. By contrast, Labour has traditionally suffered from being precisely the opposite.
According to YouGov’s tracker of public perception, Labour enjoys a huge lead when voters are asked if they think that either of the major parties ‘care about ordinary people’ (42% for Labour vs 12% for Conservative). It is equally true in reverse, with a gulf between the two parties when it comes to public opinion on whether they care ‘only about a select few’ (29% for Labour vs 66% for Conservative). This is obviously welcome. But looking at the track record in elections, it is evidently not enough. Under Starmer, perceptions of Labour ‘incompetence’ have fallen fairly substantially from 64% to 42% according to YouGov, but Labour ‘competence’ has barely flickered, up slightly from 12% to 20%. And although these are only snapshots of current public opinion they are also indicative of longer term trends in how each party is perceived. Put simply, the public generally thinks Labour is well meaning but wouldn’t trust it with the nuclear codes.
This is not to say that Keir Starmer should seek to emulate King Herod. Nor is it to say that the perception that Labour cares more about ordinary people is not a significant electoral asset. But it is to say that even in opposition, Labour should be prepared to publicly say no to certain campaigns and pressure groups that would distract from the immediate priorities, rather than suggest we can have it all. The first thing you learn in economics at school is that scarcity exists because of a combination of two forces - unlimited wants and limited resources. We all instinctively know that. It is why the Conservatives had so much success with the ‘there’s no magic money tree’ line (which tellingly never seems to be an issue for Conservative spending, no matter how wasteful).
And to be fair, the leadership clearly gets it - we have seen Starmer’s willingness to be the bad guy. At party conference, Andy McDonald resigned over Starmer’s lack of support for a blanket £15 minimum wage being pushed by the Labour left. On paper, this is something we would all want to see. Higher wages (and productivity) should be front and centre of what the Party is trying to do. But is it really realistic to suggest that, for example, a local cafe offering some young people their first job on £4.62 per hour give them a 324% pay rise? While £4.62 per hour is evidently too low, we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
So while in opposition it is tempting to say that Labour can offer more of everything good and less of everything bad in the world. It is all very well saying we can have more police, lower hospital waiting times, green investment, cuts on fuel VAT, lower national insurance contributions and higher public sector pay but Labour must also convey a sense of where the priorities lie or it will compromise its credibility. At its heart, the challenge for Labour is to present to the public not only what it would do in Government but also what it would not. And if that ruffles a few feathers among the usual suspects on Twitter, so be it.
Harry McNeill
Hanbury Strategy