Does dishonesty matter in politics, or does it not? Boris Johnson is not the first dissembling or deceitful politician to inhabit No 10, but his chicanery is uniquely lacking in subtlety. His declaration last December that “all guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all times” – despite No 10 receiving what must amount to more fines per square metre than any other building in Britain – neatly encapsulates the prime minister’s character. His increasingly desperate apologists may protest that Johnson believed he was stating what he believed to be true, but much like the characters in David Cronenberg’s film Existenz, who spend so much time playing a virtual reality game they no longer understand what is real, Johnson has lived in a world of lies for so long that he probably struggles to recognise what truth is.
There is a consensus among his opponents that Johnson’s serial dishonesty corrupts our flailing democracy. While widespread contempt for politicians may seem culturally ingrained, a recent study found that 63% believed politicians to be out for themselves, compared to 48% in 2014 and 35% in 1944. This naturally raises the question of Keir Starmer. For the Labour leader’s uber-supporters on social media, to even question his honesty – given the scale of his opponent’s violations of truth – is an indecent act. This itself underlines Johnson’s efficacy in poisoning democratic norms: by being so serially dishonest, he increases tolerance for deceit that is seen as less severe.
And it brings us to Starmer’s leadership campaign – that is, the means by which he won the confidence of sufficient Labour members to place him in the position of potential prime minister. Last week, it was reported that Starmer is likely to abandon the party’s commitment to raise income tax on those earning more than £80,000 a year: that is, the top 5% of earners. Yet, during the leadership campaign, Starmer issued a document known as the 10 Pledges. The first of those pledges – still live on Starmer’s website – under the heading “Economic justice”, is “Increase income tax for the top 5% of earners”, driving it home with a final flourish: “No stepping back from our core principles.” Such was the Starmer campaign’s emphasis on this pledge that one of his key aides personally rang me up to underline its cast-iron nature.
Coupled with Starmer’s campaign promises that the 2017 Labour manifesto was the party’s “foundational document” and the warning, “don’t trash the last four years”, anyone who claims there is no dishonesty if the pledge is indeed dropped is being deceitful themselves.
The broken promises go on. While Starmer has since claimed that pledge number five, which calls for “common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water” did not mean nationalisation when it came to energy, this does not explain why he stuck up his hand to support “nationalising water and electricity” in the televised hustings on BBC Two’s Newsnight during the campaign. Maybe some believe his sixth pledge – “Defend free movement as we leave the EU” –shouldn’t haven’t been made, but it was, and it has been brazenly abandoned. But then again, Starmer courted the Labour membership as Mr Remain before ordering his MPs to vote for Johnson’s hard Brexit deal. As for “unite our party” and “promote pluralism”, Starmer personally reassured me at the end of 2020 that “I am not out to crush the left”, before 10 months later seeking to change the party’s leadership rules in a move clearly intended to prevent the left standing a candidate ever again. That Starmer simultaneously declared in the contest that “the attacks on Jeremy Corbyn were terrible, they vilified him” before removing the whip – while his aides briefed the Murdoch press they intend to expel leftwing MPs – points towards a duplicity beyond parody.
Starmer’s allies shrug this all off. Things have changed since the leadership election! Sure, but what has changed to demand a scaling back – rather than an expansion – of Labour’s vision? Labour is ahead in the polls, and very likely to triumph in the Wakefield byelection in June. But none of this is the party’s own doing: it is a consequence of Tory self-immolation and spiralling prices. There’s no question that their sole flagship policy – a windfall tax on energy companies – brought pressure to bear on the Tories to implement one, but the government introduced a more ambitious version and left the opposition with an empty cupboard. They do not know what to replace it with, because despite years in political exile under Corbynism, the Labour right never worked out a coherent vision for modern Britain. When shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves declares that Labour is “winning the battle of ideas”, what does she mean? What new paradigm does Labour wish to construct? With Labour now demanding the Tories’ cost of living package is examined by the spending watchdog to see if it will drive up the deficit and inflation, it seems the party wishes the revive the ghost of George Osborne.
Labour’s own focus groups are littered with voters complaining about Labour moaning all the time without offering their own clear solutions. Powered by the analysis of Starmer’s chief strategist, the former pollster Deborah Mattinson, the leadership believes that Labour’s chances of winning an election depend on economic credibility – not unwise – but that is defined by being seen as “pro-business”. In meetings and dinners with business leaders, Starmer emphasises “wealth creation”. His team believe that Labour under Ed Miliband – let alone Corbyn – was afflicted by this failure, even though post-2015 defeat polling found 42% of voters felt Labour “is too soft on big business and the banks”, with 22% dissenting. It is monstrous that the media baits Labour with relentless questions about trans people’s genitalia, deploying one of the country’s most vulnerable minorities as political fodder to divide the opposition, but why is it so effective? Because with an absence of vision, culture-war baiting can easily fill the vacuum instead.
Perhaps Johnson’s own wretched dishonesty, combined with a spiralling cost of living crisis will pave the way for a Labour victory by default. If the Tories recover – perhaps if inflation eases, and voters tire of Partygate and see little inspiring from Labour – some of Starmer’s fairweather allies will look instead to Blairite shadow health secretary Wes Streeting, a longstanding close associate of Labour communications chief Matthew Doyle. Such a leadership would fetishise the private sector – including in public services – and outflank the Tories from the right on the deficit. But whatever happens next, ask yourself truthfully: if you care about Johnson’s dishonesty but dismiss Starmer’s, then do you really care about dishonesty at all, or do you just resent being on the receiving end of it? And when you answer – unlike Britain’s two leading politicians – try to be honest.
Owen Jones is a Guardian columnist
