A submarine strategy.
- Labour aim is to ask questions, esp on trust & process.
- Don't want to commit to 'too fast' (or 'too slow') general Labour view of policy. Keep it micro/detailed
- Want to be flexible re wherever future public critique coalesces, eg in future inquiry.
- Labour aim is to ask questions, esp on trust & process.
- Don't want to commit to 'too fast' (or 'too slow') general Labour view of policy. Keep it micro/detailed
- Want to be flexible re wherever future public critique coalesces, eg in future inquiry.
Position: We supported your aims, but probed whether you were getting it right. (But we doubt your competence to deliver, and maintain public trust). So want to avoid differences of principle or policy; to make it more about govt delivery of outcomes & public trust/confidence.
Its easier to be Opposition than government.
Opposition well-placed to support on NHS, job retention & support 'reopen safely' principle (= constructive ambiguity)
Gvt vulnerable on testing, care homes (esp), cross-pressures of 'reopen safely', health & jobs impacts of Autumn
Opposition well-placed to support on NHS, job retention & support 'reopen safely' principle (= constructive ambiguity)
Gvt vulnerable on testing, care homes (esp), cross-pressures of 'reopen safely', health & jobs impacts of Autumn
Everything Keir Starmer does likely to be a professionally executed version of the How to Oppose text-book.
- keep party unity, but try to focus on public
- probe government, be cautious re own policy
- hope government loses trust/confidence over time, to create space.
- keep party unity, but try to focus on public
- probe government, be cautious re own policy
- hope government loses trust/confidence over time, to create space.
Can be effective: it was working well for John Smith in 1992-94 (though Blair thought it too cautious, put much more emphasis on "New" Labour changing after 1994)
Other Labour oppositions have failed on competence/unity.
A broader ? re Brexit 2019: ability to read public mood.
Other Labour oppositions have failed on competence/unity.
A broader ? re Brexit 2019: ability to read public mood.
An effective opposition can get taken up as the government-in-waiting by default if government collapses (Autumn 1992 scenario).
But an effective, united opposition might not be chosen as the government, in a more competitive election, without doing more than that, by the end.
But an effective, united opposition might not be chosen as the government, in a more competitive election, without doing more than that, by the end.
Keir Starmer model is more John Smith (with a dash of Harold Wilson/Ed Miliband) than Tony Blair - esp because he will not want to run against his own party's brand to seek public definition (A key to why Blair chose"New Labour" message; why Smith considered it & rejected it).
David Cameron was also a 'seek public definition by running against own party image/brand' leader (the New Labour playbook), while both Theresa May and Boris Johnson rejected doing that: seek to lead the tribe and to broaden it too (more the John Smith/Keir Starmer approach)
Incidentally, in specific Autumn 1992 case, the Opposition's position on ERM (pro) had v.little impact on opposition's standing as govt reputation collapsed. This was a constant ministerial/Conservative theme (frustration) but little cut through beyond committed supporters. 
Smith made the issue a general one of competence (with a dash of bad luck) "There he is, the man with the non-Midas touch. Prime Minister of a country where the Grand National doesn't start and the hotels fall into the sea"
politicalcartoon.co.uk/cartoon-galler…
politicalcartoon.co.uk/cartoon-galler…
One price of such a strategy (gradualist) is that it is very boring, especially if executed with tedious consistency. So it is v.unappealing to commentators: will be consistent itchiness to do more from the highly engaged, though it is a tactic aimed at the much less engaged.
One way to mitigate being boring is to put more energy into things that engaged party supporters care about where general public indifferent (nb: *not* those things which generate cultural conflict)
Eg: big focus on devolving power to local govt. (Works for party but not media!)
Eg: big focus on devolving power to local govt. (Works for party but not media!)
The more difficult part is to do simple public-facing things that help to neutralise difficult culturally divisive issues (Brexit, patriotism, etc) - while persuading the highly engaged that such neutralising moves are either good or neutral (and not a betrayal of key values).
If you needed to disrupt Starmer's (pro-boring) strategy, you would try to increase the heat & salience of cultural issues that unite Cons 2019 coalition - and create tension between Labour's membership, its voters & future voters - hoping the cultural left rises to that bait.
A reasonable challenge is "but what if lives are at stake". Surely this trumps political strategy & party positioning.
That thought then requires a theory of change of how an Opposition influences policy more than Starmer's approach has been able to (A fair bit, at the margin)
That thought then requires a theory of change of how an Opposition influences policy more than Starmer's approach has been able to (A fair bit, at the margin)
On the "lives at stake" challenge to careful, boring, gradualist scrutiny of process and performance
This thread, unrolled
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1267025…
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1267025…
