Starmer admits mistakes
But he won't fix the biggest one of all
There is a certain type of advert that I often see on the internet. Instead of providing a link which opens up the chance to buy the item being promoted, the advertisements I have in mind are almost the polar opposite. The initial link opens up a video – usually a very long video, perhaps 20 minutes – which cannot be fast-forwarded, before finally reaching the point of sale ... if only one has stayed on the page.
The video content shows someone – usually, in my experience, the person selling the product – explaining how they first discovered it (or invented it). Often, the product is a miracle cure for some uncomfortable ailment. The video essentially consists of drawing the viewer in with a story of the presenter’s past suffering, reaching the point where it seems that the product is about to be revealed, only for the presenter to swerve away and discuss more about the ailment, such as how many are having their lives ruined by it.
Rather like email scammers who (so I have read) deliberately include typos and other mistakes intended to weed out intelligent people who aren’t worth trying to attract, these videos are (I assume) designed to filter out all but the most desperate potential purchasers so that a huge price can be charged to those who persist to the video’s conclusion.
Until today, I had only ever watched one of these videos to its end. It took a huge amount of patience, but I stuck it out in the interests of research. I had no intention of buying the item.
This morning, I saw my second such video. It had been trailed on every newsfeed that I follow. Sir Keir Starmer was going to give a speech to save his premiership, including a break in some of his red lines. I expected a political speech, not an internet sales video. But the latter was all that I saw.
It began with a statement of the problems Britain faces, coupled with an emotional declaration that existing solutions won’t work: no more “incremental change” and no “going back to the status quo”. Instead, “change cannot come quickly enough … we must make our country fairer”.
And, then, just as I expected to learn what change and what fairness, Starmer switched to talking about his working class background, who he stands for, and what steps he had already taken (reduced waiting NHS lists, staying out of the war with Iran and even claiming to have stabilised the economy that minutes earlier he was saying wasn’t working for people). If voters hadn’t bought this at last week’s elections, why would they buy it now?
But on he went. He told us that he had made mistakes (albeit without acknowledging what they were) and told us again that the status quo wasn’t the answer. In the coming days, we will see “hope” and “urgency”. But the only hope I saw was his hope that people were being fooled by this.
Like all internet videos that follow this technique, there was eventually a point at which we could buy something - or maybe not. He gave us what he called “three examples”:
Nationalising British Steel. But there will be a public interest caveat that has yet to be addressed.
Putting Britain back at the heart of Europe. But, as he revealed in answers to questions, not by rejoining the single currency, a customs union or the EU. So what, exactly, does he plan to do?
Every young person struggling to find work will be guaranteed a job, training or a work placement. But a work placement is only temporary. So too is a training programme. Eventually, there comes a point when the young person wants a proper job. The government can’t guarantee jobs if the jobs don’t exist.
This was a speech that was supposed to reassure the country – and especially Labour MPs – that the role of Prime Minister was safe in his hands. The evidence for that, he told us, was the chaos we saw under the Tories when they made changes. In other words, he was telling us that Wes Streeting, Angela Rayner and Andy Burnham would all be comparable to Liz Truss.
He called for change, except for a change of his job. The status quo was to be rejected, except for the bit of the quo that is him.
I didn’t buy it.
Spot on - as you invariably are! I didn’t bother listening to his speech. Thank you for going through the pain and futility of doing that and confirming the wisdom of my decision to give it a miss!
Simon, I suspect one of the problems is that most people have stopped listening. What I see is someone who is simply not good at their job. It happens. And the more he tries to do the leadership thing the more his limitations are exposed.