It’s too late for Starmer, but Albanese has two years to take a bold stance against Hansonism and explain to the public his own plan.

The fall of Sir Keir Starmer as prime minister of the British Labour government is full of meaning for his friend Anthony Albanese as Australian prime minister. Above all, it’s a reminder of how quickly an overwhelming parliamentary majority, and the political authority and legitimacy that confers, can disappear. Albanese is by no means at the same point, but, like British Labour, he is being forced to cope with a populist uprising by a charismatic outsider who is hard to wrestle with, to pin down or to conquer.

Starmer’s nemesis was himself. He was not outmanoeuvred by his political enemies in his own party, in the Conservatives or by the Nigel Farage movement. He won power with a huge majority, reflecting voter despair at the efforts of conservative predecessors. The Tories, under Boris Johnson, had themselves trampled over Labour at the previous election. But they so badly managed their charge that they exhausted goodwill and public confidence. Starmer did not so much offer an alternative plan. He simply offered himself, a man of apparent decency and competence, at heart not a cynical politician or old hack.  Indeed, a sort of non-politician.

But it soon became clear that he was not the messiah. His failure was not because he was a victim of events no one could have predicted – a war, say, or a natural disaster or severe economic downturn. He faced no enormous scandals, least of all ones involving himself and reflecting on his character. There were mistakes and instances of misconduct, incompetence and mismanagement by ministers but there were no flashpoints that marked his term by scandal and corruption.  His appointment of Lord (Peter) Mandelson as Ambassador to the US exposed him to severe and justified criticism but did not suggest personal abuse of power.  He managed some crises – relations with Donald Trump, with the European Community and helping to sustain Ukraine through its war with Russia despite sabotage and lack of commitment by Trump – with some skill. A bit like Albanese. No gold star but a pass.

Yet Starmer’s authority and standing at the polls ebbed away almost from the start. He entered the fray with great public goodwill and a lot of expectations. He represented change and hope for bold action that could rescue a nation in the doldrums, looking for growth and national energy post-Brexit. A nation, post-COVID, beset with populists blaming the malaise on foreigners, on refugees and on administrations said to have lost touch with ordinary people.

It was never clear just what exactly was on offer from Starmer, or from a Labour government. Certainly not a vague radical left-wing agenda: he had publicly purged his predecessor Jeremy Corbyn. He had not articulated a program or a platform. More likely than not, most of those who voted for him simply wanted the Tories out. That was probably more significant than wanting Labour in.

The idea that the opposition was voted out was similar at the last election in Australia. Labor had just scraped in the term before and had a bare majority over the combined forces of the formal opposition and an unusual number of independents. But the opposition had changed leaders, and this leader, Peter Dutton, was putting forward a radical right-wing agenda.

Labor campaigned hard on the character and personality of Dutton, with warnings of how much he would change the face of government. The spectre of Trumpism was raised. Labor’s landside was less an endorsement of Albanese, or of Labor’s platform, than a clear repudiation of Dutton.  Albanese, who had disappointed his followers with his caution and policy timidity during his first term, may have continued with this because he appreciated the limited nature of his popular mandate. He has taken a few cautious steps with this year’s Budget. But he has not been acting as if emboldened by a big majority. Instead, he has continued with steady but usually very cautious policy and programs.

With Starmer those who were expecting bold action of a traditional Labour type saw nothing but neo-liberal humdrum. And very soon, soothing but discouraging words against big agendas, with talk like the government before about cost cutting and working with reduced resources. Unlike Albanese, Starmer did not even seem to have an immediate to-do list, soon to be elevated to the status of election promises that trumped everything else.

Like Albanese, Starmer was no natural communicator. He was not a master of the short, sharp defining phrase. Nor was he usually the person who could master the scripts of others to add colour and movement and personality to an idea. Trump derisively said he was “no Churchill”. Though a former prosecutor, this lawyer did not seem, in the Commons, a master of framing an argument or persuading the public. He may have been better at winning arguments with small groups behind closed doors but he did not advance beyond such triumphs to then confidently explain to the public and parliament, in memorable phrases, what had happened and why.

He lacked a narrative for what the government was facing, for what it was doing and why it was doing it. He never seemed to understand the need to describe, explain and defend even minor decisions within such a grand narrative and big plan. For all leaders, part of the job involves dampening expectations and dashing some hopes for actions serving particular groups. But he conveyed little by way of empathy in reaching out to constituency groups, to people with special needs or strong expectations, or histories of long loyalty to the party.

Starmer was of working-class origins, but he was a professional lawyer and administrator, not an advocate. He has never seemed very comfortable in mixing with ordinary Britons, with party constituents or with people in the spotlight as victims. Not every politician has star quality or marked charisma. Many can survive without it. But Starmer seemed to have a special knack for woodenness and the incapacity to convey enthusiasm and excitement, to mobilise people with fresh hope and energy. Albanese is not much better.

This inability to connect was a serious political handicap. His friends and his allies were constantly wondering, and gossiping about whether, and how, he was cutting through. His leadership was not under challenge. First, there were no obvious rivals on the floor of parliament and, in any event, a leader who has brought the party back to government with a big majority has certain rights, leeway for eccentricity and reasonable expectations about loyalty. But even loyalists think and worry about re-election, and the gossip about cut-through served continually to destabilise Starmer.

His staff seemed unable to organise past such deficiencies. They did not, or could not organise a message and narrative of government through different sources, or much influence how he operated.

It is similar for Albanese, who has virtually unlimited confidence in his own analysis of events and incredible stubbornness and obstinacy in clinging to his feelings, opinions and command of the facts. Some matters, poker machine gambling for example, seem to be reserved for the prime minister himself. Some of his opponents wish only that his stubbornness, certainty and self-assurance translated into the ability to explain, willingness to argue in public or readiness to openly debate the approach he has taken.

On many issues, Albanese, like Starmer, has no instinct or desire to explain and take the public and the party into his confidence. This may not affect his standing in the parliamentary caucus but it seriously affects his standing in the public eye.

It should be clear that Starmer is not out because of the machinations of Nigel Farage. As with Pauline Hanson’s One Nation movement in Australia, Farage has traded on racism and disillusion with government to demolish the British Conservative Party. As in Australia, Farage is also attracting support in Labour constituencies. He needs to be countered.

But Starmer’s failure is not because of Nigel Farage. Starmer’s leadership destroyed itself. Starmer may soon have confirmed to potential Farage voters that he was no better than the succession of Tory prime ministers before him. But he did not destroy himself in some sort of Farage trap or even, for that matter, because of an immigration, refugee or race issue.

Starmer’s failure to develop either a big picture or a little picture meant that the success or failure of any initiatives tended to depend on their own merits, rather than as a piece in a grander mosaic. This tended to reduce his capacity to manage expectations, to balance losses against gains or to repudiate those, particularly in the left of the party with a tendency to see even positive action as being too little and too late. It has also meant that any political manoeuvring, such as when the British government has tried to shift its approach – to refugee settlement or the entry of immigrants or has tried to harden its position on dissent and demonstrations – have occurred in the public eye. All could witness debates with opponents, inside and outside the party, alert and ready to denounce the party leadership for alleged appeasement of Farage’s movement or reducing personal freedom.

This has not been helped by the jeering of Farage, who (like Hanson) has not hesitated to weaponise any law-and-order, cost-of-living or welfare issue as a subset of his immigration agenda. As the Australian conservative parties have discovered, there is no political plus in moving to the right towards Hanson, because she can and will, promptly harden her position further. Likewise, even a Labor Party pretending to be innocent of pandering to Hanson learns that decisions to reduce immigration numbers, to take a hard line on Muslim extremists, or to reduce student numbers will be treated (on both sides of parliament) as a Labor surrender and proof of the correctness of Hanson’s position.

A party that can claim to be acting on principle rather than to cave-in to One Nation is one that explains and discusses what it is doing and why. It enters the argument eagerly, spoiling for a fight, rather than diffidently as if every reiteration of values or facts runs the risk of alienating potential One Nation voters.

One Nation cannot be ignored away. Nor can the presence within One Nation of serious extremists, including Neo-Nazis, be overlooked lest perfectly decent Australians, caught in a broad mood of disgust and anger with the traditional party system, be offended.

The next election is not necessary until mid-2028. What polls say about present voting intentions is unimportant unless those intentions are to solidify. Labor (and the Liberals) have the time to play an active long game against Hanson. They cannot go passive, hoping that she will go away.

The active game involves pressing her about the detail and practical effect of her announced policies, including exposing the contradictions in them. It involves bringing public players and voting groups, including migrants, working voters and welfare recipients into public arguments about the type of Australia and the type of labour market she wants. It involves a genuine public dialogue about monocultures and multicultural society. And serious discussion about Australian values and what might be described as the social contract with which Australia has welcomed people coming from abroad.

These are not shameful secrets. They do not put social cohesion, whatever that means, at risk. Rather, a sensible debate will reinforce all the best parts of our society. We need a prime minister who does not shy away from such arguments or try to dial down the temperature by being nastier to classes of our citizens. Most Australians, including most people presently indicating themselves to be One Nation supporters, don’t have a problem with Australians of different backgrounds and cultures.

Because the Hanson campaign is also about the role of governments, of which she says she has had a gutful, it would do positive good to improve the quality of public administration at both ministerial and administrative level, including with effective anti-corruption practices and open, transparent and more accountable government. We need better public understanding of the goods and services, including health, education, policing, welfare and defence, provided through government.

For too many long years politicians have been allowed to suggest that the work of public servants is a drag on society. Somehow, we do not need teachers, doctors, nurses or cops. Or expert and independent eyes and ears on the best organisation of how such services are provided efficiently and effectively. These hint at it being better organised through corrupt political mates and cronies, and by people, often former politicians with inside access to their former colleagues, greased by electoral ‘donations’.

Public service does not deserve the bad press it gets. Those who casually abuse it should be called to account. And not only in Canberra but out in the cities, towns and regions where the work of public servants makes a practical difference to the lives of many of the Australians Hanson pretends to represent and to speak for.

If Albanese is to avoid Starmer’s fate, he has a lot to do.

Republished from The Canberra Times

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.