The lesson politicians refuse to learn? People are crying out for a leader who is honest about what they stand for | Zoe Williams

In a parallel or future world – one during which all our nationwide crises have been nonetheless in practice, however we had a authorities centered on fixing issues somewhat than firefighting the implications of its personal incompetence and enriching itself – what could be totally different?
Would we be again on talking phrases with the EU, and attempting to reverse a number of the monetary ache Brexit has prompted? Would we rethink freedom of motion to ease the labour scarcity? Would we cease attempting to ship refugees to Rwanda and erase that terrible stain on the nationwide character? Would we no less than recognise that a pay rise to bust inflation isn’t step one to anarchy, and something much less is a pay lower? Would we recognise that happening strike is a highly effective collective act, not a unnecessary inconvenience attributable to pests?

The Labour leader would favor not to say. Although because it emerged on the weekend that Keir Starmer’s forthcoming speech on immigration will rule out freedom of motion, possibly it’s much less miserable when he can’t resolve. But it is all fairly miserable.

Anyone who thinks they can clarify the social gathering’s common timidity on this situation by analysing this leader, with this staff, on this context, has a very brief reminiscence. Labour has a wealthy historical past of rolling over, particularly on problems with race, immigration and asylum. It was Tony Blair who barred asylum seekers from working and created a cycle of destitution that persists. Who might overlook Ed Miliband’s “controls on immigration” mug (definitely not me, as I nonetheless personal one. I exploit it to drink bitter herbs, whereas doing incantations), or Harriet Harman’s determination to ask Labour MPs to abstain on welfare cuts, whereas furiously castigating Tory welfare cuts? Who might overlook Gordon Brown’s “British jobs for British workers” in 2007, a phrase lifted straight from the National Front, which he all the time claimed by no means to remorse, and but all of us knew was miles away from what he believed? Even Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott, who have been initially so good at tackling rightwing narratives head-on, faltered on the immigration bill in 2019, whipping their MPs to abstain earlier than a backbench insurrection pressured them to oppose it.

People typically blame Labour’s focus-group tradition for its failure to absolutely oppose xenophobia. The primarily unstated assumption is that common British folks, from the “red wall” to “Waitrose woman”, are basically a bit racist – nothing wild, thoughts, simply sufficient to frighten them off any politician who has any elementary and unyielding anti-racist values. In reality, I feel the precise reverse is true: each ballot on all the pieces, from voting intentions to phrase clouds, suggests that folks are crying out to hear some actual values. Even if they don’t agree with them, they would favor to hear somebody say them out loud. That’s what they imply when they call Starmer “boring” – they don’t imply, “Wouldn’t it be great if he was a bit sillier, and got stuck on a zip-line, or had some interesting hobby, like ballroom dancing?” They imply, “Tell us what you actually stand for.”

I don’t even suppose focus teams are the issue. A extra elementary assumption has been dogging the social gathering for a long time: that if you happen to appease the rightwing press sufficient, dodge the thornier points rigorously and skirt spherical ideological variations, it received’t come after you, and it’ll give your programme a truthful listening to. The reverse is true and, in spite of everything this time, for any politician not to have observed that is unforgivable.

If a leader fails to oppose xenophobic coverage concepts, the press will merely discover a front-bench colleague who does, then make hay over the social gathering’s “divisions”. Or it should dig out his earlier speeches, from again when he had a backbone, and giggle on the inconsistency. It doesn’t matter how a lot you roll over to the Mail or the Express – you’ll all the time be the identical previous leftie, solely now you’re a mendacity leftie.

There is no subtle method, no elegant different to saying who you are.