Thread by @lewis_goodall

Snap thoughts on the speech

-Consciously echoed style, themes of previous leaders- especially Wilson, Blair, Kinnock.
-lots of White Heat Wilsonianism in particular.
-grounded in domestic issues/public services
-decent delivery, best I’ve seen from him
-but too long.

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1443171945999224842

-despite length was short on specifics. Perhaps not necessary at this stage.
-length meant danger was of veering from subject to subject without much sense of priority or grander vision.
-But to some extent I think that’s deliberate. Starmer is not necessarily a man with...

-... a novel sweeping vision, what he is, or at least, the message his team clearly want to project, is a man with a plan. A more boiler plate sense of social democracy. And they’re leaning into his technocratic air. His seriousness, sobriety- a conscious contrast between...

... both Johnson and Corbyn. A bet that the country is fed up with the turmoil of recent politics and wants a change in the style of politics as much as substance. Reassurance, greater orthodoxy over endless revolution, upheaval, anger.

On a side note striking how much Starmer, a lawyer, grounds his rhetoric in Labour’s historic home- in the art, the beauty of manufacture, the shop floor etc. This was some of the most authentic stuff- an old but powerful form of Labourism.

But one can get too drawn into one speech, one way or the other. The clips will work well on the news tonight and throughout the day (there’s certainly plenty to choose from). Starmer’s team wanted to properly reintroduce him to the country and it will have done that.

Bigger problem which will likely return to damage Starmer from this conference is that Labour’s forever war has been well and truly reignited. Indeed, that now appears to be part of the strategy.

There were two models Starmer could have taken. One was Biden’s, ie reach an accommodation with the left and try and channel their energy (which has been driving force of social democracy in recent years). Or Blair’s. That’s the Westminster playbook, Lab leaders have to...

...prove themselves against their party etc (not a test applied to Conservative leaders btw). Starmer has chosen the latter. Maybe that will be proved right, we don’t know. The danger is you just end up embattled, that once you pick a fight with your party, you can never stop.

Lots of talk of doing a Kinnock at this conference. But of course, Kinnock lost. Twice. Surprisingly less about doing a Biden or a Scholz.

The other problem with taking on your party is it’s fine if you have a mandate for it. Blair did. To a lesser extent Cameron did.

No one can complain when you do it with that legitimacy. KS doesn’t because that’s not how he ran. So the counter-reaction is even worse than it would be anyway and the risk of just looking embattled all the greater. Not least because unlike in the 90s the Left’s far from dead.

In other words, Team Starmer has made a bet that the value they extract from being seen to take on the Left is greater than the disbenefit from having to spend so much energy endlessly fighting them coupled with potential to lose wider left coalition of voters. It’s a big bet.

So

Speech: did the job. Lot of expectations and he met them. Had it been the other way could have been really difficult for him.

But because of choices he’s made Brighton was the start of something proper between him and his party. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.

That’s it for Lab conf for another year. One thing all its factions can surely agree on- what a pleasure to be in Brighton.

And here’s my piece from last night’s Newsnight on this slightly strange conference, what we’ve learnt and the battles to come.