Dodgers vs Giants
The British public want authenticity from Labour, argues Stella Tsantekidou
I love British people. Even the much-decried champagne socialists Labour is perpetually accused of harbouring. What exactly is the charge? Holding left-wing views while owning a second kitchen?
This is why I think McSweeney’s plan to rebrand our goody two-shoes, bleeding heart liberal MPs as populist firebrands backfired. His strategy was the equivalent of taking your child to the slaughterhouse to see how her chicken nuggets are really made. Do you have a tougher child now? No, you have a lifelong vegan (Green voters), who refuses to turn up to family dinner (the Labour party). Thanks for nothing, Uncle Morgan!
What went wrong? We lost the vibes. We did so by making our politicians say things they didn’t believe in. We obsessed over a handful of Westminster papers no one cares about. We treated disillusioned voters on both the left and the right as ‘deplorables’ while remaining convinced that we were the ‘sensibles,’ ordained by the Gods of liberalism to save social democracy from ‘extremism.’ But who will save social democracy from our own bad faith?
Machiavelli identifies two types of politicians: the fox and the lion. The fox is the technocrat who manages through messaging and procedure. The lion acts directly and doesn’t soften language to spare feelings. Trump and Brexit were both signals of exhaustion with technocratic management. The public wants lions: politicians who sound like ordinary people, not trained communicators. Starmer’s Labour let too many foxes in the henhouse and culled the lions who could have led us.
Our charisma-dominated times demand authenticity. Whether you like it or not, Jeremy Corbyn had that, as does Nigel Farage. Keir Starmer is Temu Tony Blair, and we all know it. A factory reset will convince no one. Send the Barbie Lawyer Ken back. Nowhere are the pitfalls of an evasive approach to politics better illustrated than in immigration policy. The cynicism and opportunism of both sides of the party on this issue are a textbook example of a political movement completely divorced from its roots.
The positions of both the soft left and the right can be explained by who each thinks poses the greater threat to their respective constituencies in the next general election bloodbath. Has neither of them considered making immigration policy based on what is best for the country? Here, I will do it for you.
To the Labour right: everyone is a child of immigrants and refugees. British people – people shaped by Austen and Dickens – don’t like it when you speak like Danish politicians. To the Labour left: your duty is first and foremost to the British people. We immigrants came here because we love Britain and want to see it succeed. Visas are the least effective use of your humanitarian energy and resources.
Are we the baddies? Yes, but there is no time for sulking. We must admit to our delusions and hubris, and nurture the cubs who will make tomorrow’s lions.
