Advertisement

It’s overblown to argue there’s tension between Starmer and Miliband like the Blair/Brown feud

Ayesha Hazarika
Ayesha Hazarika

This week marks 100 days since Keir Starmer became Labour leader. He started his term in the midst of lockdown, being unable to celebrate or get out to press the flesh. I saw him in person last weekend and he had at least allowed himself one indulgence on Super Saturday — a much-needed hair cut. There’s been a raging debate on my social media about what Starmer’s hair represents. My political pals couldn’t decide if he was a Leftie Rockabilly or a Blairite Brylcreem boy. And nor can I.

When you ask seasoned Labour party hacks which Labour leader they think Starmer is most like, they often cite Ed Miliband, my former boss. It’s an interesting comparison especially since Starmer brought Miliband back from the cold to be his shadow business and climate change secretary. The two men have a long-standing friendship.

Miliband encouraged and helped Sir Keir become the MP for Holborn and St Pancras when he was leader. So, Starmer is now Miliband’s MP as well as his boss.

It’s a relationship which has come under scrutiny this week as some argue that Miliband is trying to wed Starmer to Corbynism by arguing “the party cannot abandon its commitment to economic transformation”. Few in the Labour tribe would argue with Ed on the need to take the economy in a bold new direction, particularly post-Covid.

To insinuate a new Blair/Brown tension within the shadow cabinet between the two men is overblown, in my view. The hostility Starmer will face on economic policy will come from Corbyn himself and his disciples.

Ed Miliband is not the hard-Left. But knowing the two men well, I think it’s interesting to compare their styles. They share many characteristics — both are warm, decent, rather gentle souls, but hard-working and ferociously bright.

Both are warm, decent, rather gentle souls and ferociously bright

They also share the values of the soft-Left of the party — strong beliefs in social and economic justice and human rights, and neither of them distanced themselves from the policies of the Corbyn era.

I’m struck by how much both men avoid conflict. Starmer hates a spat in the glare of the media, feels it’s “irresponsible” and has no time for those who do, but behind the scenes is pretty “steely”. His style is to persistently argue for what he wants until he gets it.

Miliband was more consensual even behind closed doors. He would triangulate to keep the peace, often to his detriment. Starmer has proved himself to be tougher, although a bigger mandate helps. He’s already cleared out the old Corbyn guard from Labour’s HQ, got the general secretary he wanted (something Miliband didn’t do), changed the rules on how the National Executive Committee is elected, and shocked everyone by sacking Rebecca Long-Bailey for sharing an article with anti-Semitic content. He knew that would spark division but he was prepared to do it and live with the consequences.

Publicly, Starmer is adamant that he prizes unity above all else, even though we all know that there’s unrest stirring amongst the hard-Left and figures like Len McCluskey of the Unite union. But the true test will come further down the line when the party will have to make decisions about policy. At that point, there will inevitably be hard choices, and he will have to depart from the last election-losing manifesto. Will he appease vocal party members to maintain “unity” or will he appeal to the voters to become Prime Minister? I hope he’ll be brave and make a strong choice. The country demands it. Just never ever eat a bacon sandwich in public.