KEIR Starmer has carried out the “worst possible” move to try to win back Labour voters in Scotland by being seen to “tie his colours to the Thatcherite mast”, a political expert has said.
The UK Labour leader sparked a huge backlash – including from within his own party – after praising the divisive former Tory prime minister Margaret Thatcher as a leader who delivered “meaningful change”.
He’s far from the first Labour leader to venture into this territory – then prime minister Gordon Brown once invited Thatcher for tea at Downing Street in 2007.
Thatcher also once reportedly described former Labour prime minister Tony Blair as her "greatest achievement" for steering Labour away from the left-wing policies of the 1980s.
Now Starmer’s comments have raised questions over not only whether it will impact votes for the party – particularly in Scotland – but what does the Labour leader actually stand for?
James Morrison, associate professor in journalism studies at the University of Stirling, said until now there had been “precious little” heard of Starmer’s vision.
“He’s a bundle of contradictions at the moment – he seems to want to persuade the public that his government is somehow going to be transformative,” he said.
“That it’s about a decade of renewal and it’s somehow going to rise to the challenge of dealing with the many really complex problems we have from underfunded public services to a failing economy, etc.
“But on the other hand, it is pretty much – although not explicitly – suggested that he will stick to Conservative spending limits, he’s not going to raise taxes, he’s not going to borrow for anything other than major infrastructure investment.
“And how he can possibly deliver given the quandaries we are in at the moment – or any kind of transformational change – without being prepared to do that?
“It’s simply not deliverable without those sorts of major commitments on spending and probably borrowing and probably raising taxes.”
Morrison said Starmer also appeared to be “politically naïve” at times, with his comments on Thatcher likely to have an impact in Scotland no matter how they were intended.
He said: “People in Scotland who were thinking about voting Labour again, yes they have got their own Scottish Labour and they have got their own leader up here.
“But in the end, in a General Election, they understand the person who is going to end up being Prime Minister if they contribute towards that victory is Keir Starmer.
“And if he appears to be even just paying lip service to admiring Margaret Thatcher or in some way trying to construct himself as some kind of heir to Thatcher and Thatcherism, even if that is not his intention, he is going to lose a huge number of votes or people will just sit on their hands and not go out and vote all.”
He added: “It’s about the worst thing you can possibly do in a Scottish context if you are trying to win back former Labour voters – to tie your colours to the Thatcherite mast or be seen to be doing that, even if you weren’t intending to do that.”
Others suggest the Thatcher comments could have been a calculated risk aimed at winning over floating voters and disillusioned Tory voters.
Christopher Pich, senior lecturer in marketing at Nottingham Trent University, said so far Starmer had positioned himself as “not Jeremy Corbyn” and then “not Rishi Sunak”.
But he added: “With his nod towards Margaret Thatcher and part of her legacy, there is a danger it could muddy the water, as he is saying he is not Corbyn, he is not Sunak – but is he saying he is Thatcher?
“So that could really dismay some of his left-leaning Labour supporters.
“I think that is a calculated risk he is willing to take and he is thinking by doing that I could probably appeal to more floating voters and maybe some disillusioned Conservative voters.
“So his thinking is probably yes he will lose some as he has mentioned Margaret Thatcher, but he is thinking about extra votes and picking up extra votes and securing victory in the next General Election, whether it is next year or in January 2025, whenever it is going to be.”
Pich said the clearest Starmer had been on what he stood for was before he became leader when he made 10 specific pledges – which have since been replaced with five more general missions.
He added: “I think for Starmer at some point there will be greater scrutiny of what he stands for, especially in the run-up to the actual election, when people start to say okay you can’t just keep saying you are not the Conservatives and not Rishi Sunak – what do you actually stand for, what will we get if we elect you as Prime Minister?
“I think maybe then the polls will start to narrow. At the moment he is very consistent, he appears united, he is very professional – but when that scrutiny comes up, some inconsistency may creep into his message.
“He has to clarify what he stands for and thrash out some clear policies.”
Meanwhile, Starmer faces also having to win back the so-called Red Wall – the working-class constituencies in the Midlands and Northern England that historically supported Labour but many of which were won by the Conservatives in 2019.
Lisa Mckenzie, senior lecturer in sociology at the University of Bedfordshire, whose work focuses on class inequalities, suggested this would be down to the type of MPs and not the leadership of Starmer.
She pointed to the Labour leader’s comments in a speech to the Resolution Foundation last week in which he spoke about financial struggles faced by millions of people in the country. He said: “My sister is one of them. I will say to her – let’s go to the pub for lunch. And she will say, straight away: 'I’ll make sandwiches'.”
But Mckenzie said: “Does he not realise that when he’s talking about his sister and sandwiches that it’s absolutely a piss take for people? It’s patronising and condescending and people see through it.
“Who takes sandwiches to the pub? I don’t and I live in a mining village now, there is food there.
“He is as insincere as Rishi Sunak and he knows as much about these communities as Rishi Sunak does.”
