What Keir Starmer should (and shouldn't) say before the election

The parties that win elections are the ones that choose the ground on which they are fought.

Britain has reached a point in the electoral cycle where the opposition looks more interesting than the government. The near-universal assumption at Westminster, including among the shrinking number of Conservative MPs who plan to stand for parliament again, is that Labour’s Keir Starmer will be the next prime minister.

For a political commentariat habitually beguiled by what’s happening in campaign “war rooms” rather than in policy or broad political currents, the effect is to render Rishi Sunak’s announcements irrelevant in all but one respect - how does Labour respond? Would Starmer, journalists are primed to demand, reverse this approach or that spending decision? Which pledges will he match and which will he dismiss?

Media myopia suits the Conservatives. The government can scarcely run on a record of falling living standards, a stalled economy, a broken criminal justice system and record waiting times in the National Health Service.

The prime minister will do his best to claim he is a “change” candidate. After 13 years in power, promises to do better next time struggle for credibility. Sunak started out in No 10 offering competence and integrity. With the polls still running heavily against him, his new gambit swaps seriousness for populism. 

So far we have had false dividing lines on immigration, Brexit and climate policy. By the Conservative account, a Labour government would invite another 100,000 asylum seekers, backtrack on leaving the European Union, put a tax on meat and impose compulsory car sharing. Soon enough the culture wars will turn to gender.

The deceits should speak for themselves - to the extent there is an asylum problem it largely reflects the Home Office’s failure to process applications; Brexit has been an unmitigated economic disaster; and no-one is planning to tax steak and chips or to force people to share their cars. No matter. The purpose of identity politics is to appeal to emotion over truth or reason. 

It was striking that in diluting the government’s net zero commitments, Sunak dismissed the advice of his own independent climate committee by reprising his cabinet colleague Michael Gove during the 2016 Brexit referendum. The “people” had “had enough of experts”, Gove boasted. And, it seemed, of facts. In this parallel world, a failing NHS or rivers awash in untreated sewage are as nothing compared to the threats to the nation’s character posed by cross-channel refugees and transsexuals. 

So how should Starmer respond to the will-you-won’t-you questions? The answer, most of the time, is to say not very much. He has set out the essential parameters for a Labour government. By temperament it would be social democratic rather than socialist, be fiscally responsible, favour public investment over current spending, seek a cooperative relationship with the European Union, remain a stalwart of NATO and stick to the timetable for net zero carbon emissions by 2050.  

By the time the party comes to write its manifesto the voters, rightly, will want more by way of details There are obvious questions, notably how any government can begin seriously to rebuild public services without increasing the tax burden. How fast does Starmer intend to go? Where will any pain be most acutely felt? So, yes, Labour will be obliged to cost its programme and explain how it would pay for it.  On some big issues - the HS2 rail project line may well be one of them - it will have to be specific. 

Before then, Starmer would do best to focus on shaping Labour’s priorities - by talking to the country about what it is about and the contrasts with the Conservative record. The alternative is to be pulled on to Sunak’s ground and allow the government to escape the exhaustive scrutiny owed its performance. 

There is nothing wrong with prudence - or with making the obvious point that things will have changed by the time of an election. Whatever today’s fiscal numbers they will be very different by polling day. 

Starmer is often criticised on his own side as overly timid about rebuilding bridges with the European Union. An episode the other day proved why he needs to choose his words carefully. The Labour leader offered a common sense observation that Britain should not be in the business of driving down environmental and labour standards below those of the rest of Europe. For the Conservatives, and, sadly, for quite a few excitable journalists, here was proof positive he would reverse Brexit.   

Governments-in-waiting have the confidence to ignore the media chaff. The will-you-won’t-you game is great fun for the media. And doubtless the Sunak-supporting press will charge that Starmer is concealing some dastardly secret plan. But the parties that win elections are the ones who choose the ground on which they are fought.