Keir Starmer, newly elected leader of the Labour Party, is a much-discussed figure. His credentials as a centrist, and more broadly-appealing politician than his predecessor are much touted by his supporters. His wishy-washy policy, close to the betrayals of Tony Blair, and his affiliations with the previous Labour elite are decried by the right.
The more pertinent questions to ask are not those of where Starmer’s position lies (it’s morphic in any case) but those of how we are discussing him. In defending “our” person from the attacks of the “other side”, only criticising the former from within, we are liable to forget the basis of political discourse. Put simply, we forget ourselves.
To the majority of readers, not all of Starmer’s political positions are wholly palatable. Perhaps his lack of outspokenness on various social justice issues irks you, or his economic policies are a source of vexation. Indeed, finding a politician with policies identical to one’s own is impossible. Whoever these positions come from, you disagree with them. The very essence of politics is having a view.
The question, then, is whether or not to consider him at all, because principles matter regardless of “whose” person he is. In allowing a certain party’s positions to become the default, and the paradigm for “the left”, it becomes too easy to lose sight of the horizons of ideology. Think, for instance, of the foreclosure of the option of communism as a discursive position after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.
Pro- or anti-Starmer, let not party lines become your thoughts’ borders.
Written by Oliver Haythorne
Artwork by Zara Masood
Comments