The increasing anti-Keir-Starmer condemnation and animosity I have seen on social media of recent weeks would normally not particularly surprise or upset me. But when this criticism is being spouted from almost every platform available, including those of redoubtable left-wing beliefs, I start to worry.
A recent poll on an account: UK Fact Check Politics (self described as left-leaning), asked its 100,000+ followers whether they agreed that the UK needs to see a new, more radical socialist party emerging. The result was, for me, deeply unsettling; of the respondents, 71% voted in accordance.
Of course I understand the frustration of the more sharply left leaning (and arguably overly idealistic) members of UK politics, and I am just as infuriated about the state of the UK government, but the left wing of this country is already split between Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party, and to add yet another choice to further divide the voters, especially in the archaic FPTP system, would be completely destructive and nonsensical.
A more radical socialist party would have no chance of winning a British election, and it doesn’t require huge analysis to discern that it could risk severe lasting damage. While the left wing squabbles over Starmer’s latest interview, the Tories are gradually creeping up in the polls, already looking as if they will escape much of the opprobrium and punishment that they deserve to face over their calamitous mishandling of the pandemic.
Much of the criticism of Starmer is his allegedly “weak stance” in condemning the government and his lacklustre attempts at holding them to account. While his admonishments of the Tories and their mismanagement has been apparent, I too had hoped for a more incisive arraignment. It is also true that Labour needs to distance themselves from the Tories by condemning their corruption and incompetence; it may not make them popular at present, but as the election nears, Labour needs evidence of a sustained and distinctive stance.
Yet - and this is vital - much of the public opinion throughout this period has rested on the pulling together of separate forces, ignoring differences and working together to overcome and surpass adversity. If Starmer were to decry the Tories in excess, he would receive a huge backlash for “politicising” the pandemic - simply thinking of petty party politics as opposed to the human and emotional cost experienced.
Instead, Starmer is picking his battles - he takes a stand against the government occasionally, but is not afraid either to step back and support them, and although we may not like it, it is perhaps the best option to ensure the nation’s most rapid recovery possible, and to not deride from the overarching priority.
Whatever Starmer does, he will be judged and criticised - if he is too harsh, people will argue that unity and cohesion must be prioritised over party politics, but if he seems too relaxed with the government approach, he is a traitor, a “Tory in red”, a fake. We have to hold on to the hope that Starmer is biding his time, not stirring up divisive party politics, and will attack the government once the threat of Covid-19 has started to abate.
Many of Starmer’s critics are self professed Corbynites, repeating their futile “Corbyn is my PM” rhetoric, and to put it harshly, Corbyn was nobody’s PM; accused of allowing anti-semitism into the Labour Party, having uncomfortably close links with the IRA, he was too radical and controversial a figure to win an election in Britain’s current political climate. These arguments beg the question - do these people actually want to win an election?! They seem so inward looking and occupied with such a narrow spectrum of ideas that they appear willing to sacrifice an election win and any sort of tactical gain, just to satisfy their precise political dream.
Ultimately, Labour needs to dissociate themselves from the Tories if they want to have hope of electoral success. Once the period of national grief abates, Starmer must launch a fierce reprimand and even court action against the atrocious acts of governmental corruption and ineptitude that has plagued the British pandemic response for months; if he waits too long, the window of opportunity will close and the Tories will continue to gain momentum in the polls, but if he attacks them too soon, he will be accused of using the pandemic to achieve political goals - an argument that may sound feeble, but which for the millions of those suffering from loss, is a very sensitive area.
The importance of this must not be under-estimated; people have suffered hugely during this period and the tabloids will be quick to accuse Starmer of stirring up division and exploiting the pain of individuals in a partisan battle. Acting too early would feel callous and indifferent to those for whom a proportion of the death count (easy to register as clinical numbers) has meant heartbreak.
Perhaps Starmer has lost a historical chance for the Labour Party as the Tories are now seeing success with the vaccine roll-out - it may be harder for Labour to stand against the government, with its failures slipping from public memory. Our only hope is that Starmer will wait for a time of less grief and will hold the Tories accountable, regardless of media portrayal and accusation. After all, evading criticism is impossible, and Starmer must not allow pressure to stop him from doing what is morally obligatory.
Bea Wood©
Comments