Why Starmer is succeeding and Sunak is failing - and it’s not for the reasons everyone is telling you
The polls don’t lie, particularly over such a long period of time: Labour is succeeding and the Conservative party is failing. Rishi Sunak, in his first year as prime minister, has failed to close the gap between his party and Keir Starmer’s at all, which remains a yawning chasm at around 20%. Sunak has failed, that much is clear already.
The reason most often put forth in the political media for this failure is that there was nothing Sunak could have done to turn things around. People are tired of the Tories after 13 years of them being in government and want a change. No one is convinced by Keir Starmer, but he’s in the right place at the right time. Any Tory leader succeeding Liz Truss was bound to fail.
This theory, I’m going to be frank here, is mostly bullshit. Yes, the fact that Boris Johnson and then Liz Truss were prime ministers of this country remains a massive drag on the Conservative vote. Yes, Starmer is not the most inspiring political performer in the world. But make no mistake about it: the polls being where they are now have a lot more to do with Sunak’s failings as a leader and much, much more to do with Starmer’s strengths than the hackneyed narrative would have you believe.
The reason Starmer is on course to become the next prime minister while Sunak will be seeking new professional vistas sometime in early 2025 is down to something fairly straightforward: Starmer has been strong while Sunak has been weak. In fact, Sunak has been embarrassingly, horribly weak and that is a huge factor in why he is failing.
I like Starmer. The reason for this comes down to the fact that if I had set out at the start of his leadership a list of things I would need him to do in order to win my vote, he’s done them all. Some of them I never thought in a million years he would do. Like kicking Jeremy Corbyn out of the parliamentary party. It’s underappreciated what a ballsy move that was. For instance, try and picture Rishi Sunak having kicked Boris Johnson or Liz Truss out of the Conservative parliament party. It’s impossible to even imagine, isn’t it? He doesn’t have the cojones for it, not by a long way, and everyone knows it.
In fact, Sunak actually gave Suella Braverman her job back as Home Secretary. This would have been like if Starmer had made Richard Burgon shadow foreign secretary, or found a way to get Chris Williamson re-elected into parliament and then made him shadow chancellor. If Starmer had done anything like that, I wouldn’t even consider voting for him, nor would the millions of others who will vote Labour next time have considered doing so either.
Look at the King’s Speech: Braverman went around the week beforehand proposing a bunch of policies, including a particularly cruel and silly one around taking tents away from the homeless. It appears she was freewheeling, as none of that made its way into the speech in the end. Why then does Sunak keep her in the Home Office if he’s just going to avoid all of her ideas? What is the point in her being there? Again, Sunak looks weak.
Starmer has worked hard to change Labour’s image and achieved a massive amount in a short time. Look at what he’s said on the Israel-Palestine conflict recently - it’s unimaginable that even three years ago a Labour leader would take such a position. Meanwhile, Sunak tries to carry off lines about seven bins and a meat tax in a completely unconvincing and ineffectual way. It’s like he’s being forced to say this stuff against his will. It’s very thin gruel.
This is why Starmer will almost certainly win the next election. He looks in charge and decisive. Sunak on the other hand appears to be constantly blown this way and that by the party behind him, with no firm ideas around how to run the country. Rishi Sunak could have turned things around; there was a small window of opportunity to reset the agenda when he first took over. He just wasn’t good enough to do it and now it’s too late.
Thanks for reading. If you aren’t a subscriber yet, please subscribe. If you’d like to become a paid subscriber, even better. This is all the extra stuff you get with a paid subscription:
Semi-daily updates on the state of the country and where Brexit is going.
An entire book I wrote - completed for my paid subscribers over the course of this year - entitled, How Brexit Will Be Reversed online. It is about what happened pre-referendum, during the referendum and then after it but pre-Brexit itself, with some inside stories about Farage, Vote Leave, and the Remain campaign, as well as what I think will happen in the coming decade(s) that leads to Brexit being slowly reversed - and most importantly, what pro-Europeans can do to help the process along.
Technical information about the progress - or lack thereof - of Brexit.
A chance to ask me any question about any topic and have e come back with a fully formed answer.
Anything else I think might interest paid subscribers as they come up.
Thanks everyone and I’ll see you all again next week for the worst of Brexit.
I don't much like Starmer but I think your analysis here is correct. And I do give him credit for being able to do most of the things you discuss.
I think he'll become PM and will then struggle to be effective. Which of course means he'll still be much, much, much better than any of our recent PMs... just not good, visionary or inclusive enough to make the changes to the country that are needed to reverse the decline.
He's adapted (read: changed course wildly, albeit deliberately) before, so who knows?
Starmer had to say something sensible and restrained on Palestine and to look Prime Ministerial and in Britain that means falling in with our old allies across the pond by riding American coat tails as usual.
But I feel he has not gone far enough. It's a shade of Blair and the Iraq War again. Starmer needs to go at least as far as Layla Moran and as far as the LibDems on a 4 stage plan to re-join the Single Market, plus to make encouraging noises on constitutional reforms, primarily PR voting, but also a codified Written Constitution, which would apart from other things, tie the hands of a future De Peffel Johnson type, in attempting to concentrate power into any future wannabe world king.