As we move ever closer to the 4th of July, we deserve to hear the plans of those parties most likely to form the next government – the detail, and how any 'wish-list' would be costed. Until detail is supplied, then any manifesto promise, or gimmicky card 'pledge' is meaningless, as there is nothing specific against which to hold a newly-elected government to account. In this respect, it would appear that Keir 'flip-flop' Starmer has learned from Tony Blair – you cannot be hit if you never stand still but are constantly shifting your ground; never be precise as to your plans, as they may be held against you at a later date. Starmer's tactic would appear to be obfuscation and opacity rather than clarity and transparency, after all, no leader can be accused of going back on their word if they have not been sufficiently precise in the first place. Harold Wilson famously said that 'a week is a long time in politics' and Starmer knows that any pledges he made weeks (or even years) ago can be safely forgotten in his desperation for the keys to No. 10.
So far, we have had two sets of 'pledges' made by Starmer: the first was made to Labour party delegates when he was running for leadership of the party in 2020; the second was made just four years later, in May 2024, as his opening shot in the General Election. In this blog, his 2020 pledges are examined to see how realistic and measurable they are, or whether they appear to have been deliberately crafted preventing Starmer ever becoming a hostage to fortune. The promises made are taken from the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, (CLPD), published on 12 October 2020:
The Labour Leadership Promises
Starmer made ten promises to Labour members, based in his words, on "…the moral case for socialism…" (CLPD, 2020). Whilst trying to simultaneously appeal to both the Left and Right of his Party, he managed to make pledges that had to be scrapped some four years later, as they came under media scrutiny in the run-up to a General Election. From the first of these so-called 'pledges', his tactic of obfuscation and opacity became apparent. Even a Labour Party website commented: "…his list of ten policy pledges released today has provoked some criticism in Labour circles on social media – both because of what they did include and what was missed out" (Rodgers, 2020).
- Economic Justice
Even the title, with the inclusion of the word 'justice' is designed to give the impression of fairness to the fair-minded British, and divert any scrutiny away from the political implications of the policy pledge.
"Increase income tax for the top 5% of earners, reverse the Tories' cuts in corporation tax and clamp down on tax avoidance, particularly of large corporations. No stepping back from our core principles" (CLPD, 2020).
He pledged to increase income tax for the top five percent of earners, but vitally, did not confirm by how much he would increase income tax for this group, nor how long after the election of a Labour government would such a policy become law.
There is another issue associated with this, and that relates to his 'top 5 percent' of earners: how much would one have to earn to fall within the 'top 5 %' bracket? Many people are probably unaware that they fall into Starmer's 'top 5 percent', imagining, no doubt that they would have to be earning in the region of £500,000-1 million. The answer is far less than might be imagined – around £87,000 (Barton, 2024). As an interesting article in the Independent pointed out: "The majority of Britons who earn between £80,000 and £100,000 are said to believe their salary is 'about average'" (Shah, 2022); were Starmer's pledge to become law, then many people who consider themselves 'average' earners would suddenly find themselves hit by increased taxation – this is why Starmer might feel confident in making such pledges to the Labour Party, but far less confident in confirming them to the media. In 2022, for example, he "…refused to confirm to the New Statesman that he would follow through with his leadership election pledge to raise taxes on the top 5 per cent of earners" (Chakelian, 2022). Once again, an example of Starmer's obfuscation and opaqueness. Just under a year ago, in June of 2023 he told The Telegraph: "Obviously, in principle, I want to lower taxes, so that's the driving principle" (Jones, 2023). This is yet another example of the malleability of his 'principles': he avoids reference to his earlier pledge to increase tax on the top five percent, but instead attempts to misdirect scrutiny by suggesting that he might lower taxes – but, dear reader, please note the precise use of language as befits someone of legal training – he did not actually promise to lower taxes, merely suggested that 'in principle' he would like to lower them! This, of course, means nothing: in principle, I would like to become a billionaire, but in reality the chances of this happening are zero.
How, in the space of just a couple of years, someone can pledge to increase taxation on a section of society, and then suggest that, in fact, he wants to decrease taxation, is difficult to grasp. The only possible explanation is that he makes promises to appeal to certain groups, in the full knowledge that these 'promises' can be easily be broken at a later date. By his own admission, Starmer said that he was ready to break election pledges to make Labour electable (Woodcock, 2021). As General Charles De Gaulle famously likened treaties to "…girls and roses; they last while they last." All of which raises the issue of the extent to which we can trust Starmer: will he stay true to his socialist principles, and increase tax (by an as-yet undefined amount), and despite recent 'assurances' to the electorate? Or will he betray his promises to the Labour party, and not increase taxation? The 'flip' and 'flop' of changed assurances to various people must be sufficient to give him vertigo. It was designed to appeal to the Left Wing of the labour Party, but not reiterated as he obviously understands that it would scare the voters. The real question it poses is whether it would be implemented or not. If 'yes' then he will have betrayed either his Party or the electorate – over to you Captain 'flip-flop'. Either way, he is untrustworthy.
Verdict on this pledge: Deliberately misleading
2. Social Justice
Again, we have the term 'justice' – presumably for the same reasons as previously.
"Abolish Universal Credit and end the Tories' cruel sanctions regime. Set a national goal for wellbeing to make health as important as GDP; Invest in services that help shift to a preventative approach. Stand up for universal services and defend our NHS. Support the abolition of tuition fees and invest in lifelong learning" (CLPD, 2020).
Once again, we had a 'pledge' that, on close examination, said very little and was impossible to measure. Whilst saying that he planned to 'abolish universal credit', he gave no idea of how it would be replaced. Did that mean, for example, that there would be NO form of financial assistance under a Labour government? Whilst this is unlikely, the voter is left wondering what they would propose instead – once again, this appears to be a deliberate attempt to avoid showing how proposed alternatives would be funded.
I am unsure as to what he meant by the 'Tories cruel sanctions regime' – perhaps he was referring to the punitive measures aimed at those who refuse employment, but appear content to remain on State benefit. If this is the case, then he is guilty of hyperbole- such measures are not 'cruel' but necessary to ensure that there are sufficient funds to pay for those who really are in need. To remove any sanctions associated with benefits would be to open the floodgates – is that what he is proposing? The only other 'sanctions' in place at that time were those that the Conservatives placed against Putin for invading Eastern Ukraine and the Crimea – are we to assume that he was proposing that a Labour government would stop sanctions on Russia? If that is indeed the case, then there would appear to be little difference between Starmer and Corbyn.
Pledging to 'set a national goal' for wellbeing (whatever that may be), making health as important as GDP, rather misses the point that the health of the nation is very largely dependent on the level of GDP –– which dictates the amount that a government (through taxation) has to spend on the NHS; basically, the greater the level of GDP, the greater the level of tax revenue received. Again, no detail or even logic. As for 'standing up for universal services and defending the NHS' this is meaningless verbiage – it could be argued that the Government led by Boris Johnson 'stood up' for the NHS during the first months of the COVID crisis.
He also promised to 'support the abolition of tuition fees' – presumably referring to university places. Once again, there was no alternative proposed, which meant that some universities would be faced with either closure through lack of funds, or that they would have to drastically increase the number places offered to foreign students – who pay very much more per capita in tuition fees. This would place them firmly in the cross-fire over immigration, and with regard to Masters level programmes, there would be the additional criticism that such students are eligible on successful completion of their study for a PSWV (post-study work visa) which will allow then to legally work in the UK for up to two years. This has been criticised by many organisations, including Trade Unions, as taking jobs from the British; another point of view suggested that it is "…likely to be fuelling low-wage migration rather than drawing 'global talent' into high-skilled jobs…" (Strauss, 2023)
It is unclear as to what exactly he meant by 'investing in lifelong learning' – presumably the idea was to provide the education sector with more funds, but again, there is no real explanation. Was he referring to the Primary, Secondary, or Tertiary sector, or to work-based training programmes, such as apprenticeship schemes? How much would be invested, and into which sector, and by when?
Verdict on this pledge: Muddled and Uncosted
3. Climate Justice
Once again, the pledge is designed to make the reader feel that is necessary, by calling it 'justice'. After all, who amongst us would not wish to see 'justice' implemented? With the best will in the world, I still cannot see how one can achieve 'justice' with regard to climate.
"Put the Green New Deal at the heart of everything we do. There is no issue more important to our future than the climate emergency. A Clean Air Act to tackle pollution locally. Demand international action on climate rights" (CLPD, 2020).
Starmer's pledge to 'put the Green New Deal at the heart of everything we do' has already been broken: he scrapped his pledge to spend £28 billion a year on environmental projects (BBC, 2024) as soon as he was challenged over the cost. To camouflage his pledge-breaking, he blamed the Conservatives for 'crashing the economy' – he did not even have the strength of character to take personal responsibility for the decision, yet he must have been involved in the figure in the first place. This embarrassing 'U-turn' has provided him with an important lesson on which his election campaign will be based – 'don't give detail, and then you can't be proven wrong.'
'A Clean Air Act to tackle pollution locally.' Somebody should explain to Starmer that air-borne pollution does not recognise local or international boundaries: unless there is global agreement as to the measures to be taken against, for example, industrial polluters, then all that imposing legislation on UK companies will do is to decrease their competitiveness internationally as they have to fund any environmental measures whilst their competitors are not hamstrung by similar legislation, and may in fact benefit from UK initiatives. It is very easy to bandy around slogans such as 'demand international action on climate rights' -whatever they may be – but far harder to convince the rest of the world that they have to take climate change seriously; all the more so, as the biggest culprits in the production of pollution (and carbon emissions) are countries such as Russia and China.
Verdict on this pledge: Hyperbolic, Unrealistic, and un-costed
4. Promote Peace and Human Rights
"No more illegal wars. Introduce a Prevention of Military Intervention Act and put human rights at the heart of foreign policy. Review all UK arms sales and make us a force for international peace and justice" (CLPD, 2020).
To begin with, it is necessary to take note of certain words: 'promote' and 'review' – yet another example of promising nothing whilst appearing to give assurances over two key areas.
'No more illegal wars.' This is all but laughable – most wars are illegal when viewed from one side or another – possibly the worst 'illegal' war was that instigated by Starmer's mentor, Tony Blair, in Iraq.
If he were to 'put human rights at the heart of foreign policy', he would find that this meant continuing membership of the European Court of Human Rights – something that both the Conservatives and Reform have identified as being a major obstacle to halting the flow of illegal immigrants into the UK. Based on this then, not only is illegal immigration likely to increase, but the rate at which some people are deported back to their country of origin is likely to fall dramatically. After all, to suddenly become a Christian would mean persecution in certain Muslim countries, as would an admission of homosexuality.
His 'Prevention of Military Intervention Act' is a piece of dangerous nonsense: it could place restrictions on the ability of any future government to undertake military intervention: The Falklands War would presumably have never been fought, nor would UK forces have intervened in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Bosnia. On this policy, as with many others, Starmer appears to have given more than a nod in the direction of Jeremy Corbyn. Even Labour commentators feel confused by Starmer's gymnastics; as Rodgers (2020) noted on the Labour List website:
"…the pledge that has caused most concern, or even simply confusion, is the specifics of Starmer's vow to 'promote peace and human rights.' As well as "no more illegal wars", which is clearly phrased to reference Tony Blair's Iraq intervention, the frontrunner talks of introducing a "Prevention of Military Intervention Act". The name of this proposed piece of legislation has raised some eyebrows. "At least call it "Abandon Sierra Leoneans, Kosovars and Kurds Act"," John Rentoul tweeted. "What does that even mean?" asked James Bloodworth." It is not explained in the press release or accompanying comments from Starmer, but this is what he recently specified on The Andrew Marr Show: "I would pass legislation that said military action could be taken if first the lawful case for it was made, secondly there was a viable objective and thirdly you got the consent of the Commons."
The problem with seeking a majority vote in the Commons is two-fold: (1) the enemy against whom armed intervention is being proposed will be forewarned, and (2) as the UK parliamentary system is becoming increasingly politicised with split loyalties from abroad, there may be an increasing number of MPs who do not consider British interests when voting.
'Review all UK arms sales': Once again, we have a piece of meaningless nonsense – firstly, to review something, one has to have measurable criteria against which the outcome of any review can be measured – none are given. Secondly, and linked to the first point, there is no indication of what he would like to do after any review – presumably to reduce the output, or stop it altogether. There are thousands of people in the UK who rely on the arms industry for employment, and their jobs would be at risk if a Labour government tried to halt or reduce the production of armaments. Even as long ago as 1977, when the USSR – not Russia itself – was the key potential enemy, a Labour Party Defence Review admitted that: "… the USSR is not restrained from attacking the West by feelings of benevolence. But she is prevented from doing so by the overwhelming dangers such a step would present to the Soviet leadership itself" (The Labour Party, 1977:13)
Furthermore, the 'arms industry' is not quite as self-contained as Starmer obviously imagines; take for example modern jet aircraft – an airframe can generally be configured for civilian or military purposes, and initially it may be possible to disguise the end-use. In the event of a drastic reduction in the domestic production of armaments, the UK might be forced to buy from abroad, with all the dangers of supply that this entails. As a consequence of rationalisation within the UK defence sector, much of what the UK both produces and uses is in the hands of the Americans:
"…US General Dynamics (USGD) now has a significant level of control over the supply of heavy weapons to the British Armed Forces; and more widely, the US corporations in general have a dominant position in the global arms trade. This is even more apparent with regard to the UK nuclear deterrent (US-made Trident missiles) and the RAF: of the 16 fixed-wing aircraft operated by the RAF, only four are British made" (Swift, 2019:15).
This outsourcing of military production abroad has the potential to leave the British military vulnerable to the whim of foreign governments and supplier organisations. For example, "…in 2015 it was reported that Mauro Moretti, the Managing Director of Italian defence conglomerate Finmeccanica—which owns Westland helicopters—had instituted a programme of major cuts and divestitures throughout the organisation…" (Swift, 2019: 15); as John Collingridge explained: "What Moretti decides in Rome matters in Britain. Finmeccanica is the UK's biggest defence manufacturer after BAE Systems" (Collingridge, 2015: 9). In the current climate of Russian aggression, I would argue that we need a greater investment in armaments, rather than a 'review' – which is suggestive of a reduction.
Finally, there is the last piece of nonsense: 'make us a force for international peace and justice.' He is obviously unaware of the reality of international relations – to make the UK a 'force for international peace' requires that the country be respected in terms of its military capability, otherwise, how else would we be able to discharge such a responsibility? As the classic Roman saying goes: Si vis pacem para bellum (If you want peace, be prepared for war).
Verdict on this pledge: Naïve, and Reminiscent of what the Soviets used to refer to as 'useful fools'
5. Common Ownership
"Public services should be in public hands, not making profits for shareholders. Support common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water; end outsourcing in our NHS, local government and justice system" (CLPD, 2020).
In saying this, Starmer called for nationalisation of four major industries – if nationalisation is so good (and there is an argument for it under certain circumstances) then it should be highlighted as a major policy goal; once again, however, Starmer appears to have back-tracked when challenged. In an interview on 26 September 2021, he claimed not to have advocated nationalisation, saying "I don't see nationalisation there." He went on to say that "Where common ownership is value for money for the taxpayer, then I am in favour of common ownership." Most commentators cannot see the difference between 'nationalisation' and 'common ownership' unless, of course, Starmer is proposing 'confiscation' of the utilities – in which case the government would not have to buy back these businesses from the private sector. Mike Silver, writing in Voxpolitical suggested that Starmer was lying when he said he would bring all those utilities back into public ownership (Silver, 2021). Interestingly, Starmer made no mention of the banks in his ideas for 'common ownership'/non-nationalisation.
Verdict on this pledge: Ironically, this extreme Left Wing policy might actually succeed, in view of the mess that the utility companies have made under private ownership. Starmer has, however, to express clearly the courage of his convictions, and not lose sight of the policy in pedantic 'hair-splitting' that is lost on everyone but himself.
6. Defend Migrants' Rights
"Full voting rights for EU nationals. Defend free movement as we leave the EU. An immigration system based on compassion and dignity. End indefinite detention and call for the closure of centres such as Yarl's Wood" (CLPD, 2020).
There are some controversial proposals here, beginning with the pledge to give 'full voting rights to EU nationals.' Whilst such people may currently have the right of residence in the UK, they do not have the right to vote: if this were given, one can only speculate as to their voting intentions were a second referendum on EU membership to be called. The likelihood is that they would vote for re-integration with the EU, as this would ultimately secure their position; taken in tandem with his proposed freedom of movement, this suggests that he would seek ways to take the UK back into the EU. Despite his denials that this is his intention (Morton, 2023), those who believe in Brexit would do well to remember the broken promises and U-turns that have typified Starmer to date.
To call for an immigration system based on 'compassion and dignity' is meaningless and dangerous. It is also NOT what the majority of voters want to see – they are more interested in simply stopping illegal immigration altogether, and basing legal immigration on an Australian-style system based on measurable points, rather than some ethereal concept of 'compassion and dignity'. Immigration, I would suggest will be the most important issue in the forthcoming General Election, and it will be one in which the Reform UK Party will score heavily - Starmer is, by his own admission, more concerned about 'compassion and dignity', whilst Sunak appears to have given up entirely. The reason why Starmer's proposed policy is dangerous is that uncontrolled immigration means that we are letting people into the country about whom we know nothing – they could be terrorists, foreign agents, common criminals, or carrying highly contagious diseases. The prime duty of any government is defence of its citizens – Sunak's government has singularly failed in this respect, and I have no confidence that Starmer could do any better without leaving the European Court of Human Rights – something he has refused to countenance (Parker, 2023).
Why Starmer should call for the closure of Yarl's Wood – The Immigration Detention centre - is a mystery, as it is only by keeping illegal immigrants in centres such as this, can we have at least a modicum of assurance that unknowns will not be free to roam the streets, and potentially commit serious crimes – as did the convicted Afghani sex criminal Abdul Ezedi who entered the UK on the back of a lorry in 2015 (Johnson, 2024). Once again, whilst criticising an existing institution, Starmer can offer no alternative: if the centre were to closed, what would happen to the people currently there? Could they be temporarily housed in, for example, the Southworks Building, on Rushton Street, Southwark?
Verdict on this pledge: A mixture of uninformed naiveite, mixed with a lack of understanding of the real world. It represents Labour's 'Pie-in-the-sky' thinking at its worst and most dangerous
7. Strengthen Workers' Rights and Trade Unions
Work shoulder to shoulder with trade unions to stand up for working people, tackle insecure work and low pay. Repeal the Trade Union Act. Oppose Tory attacks on the right to take industrial action and the weakening of workplace rights. (CLPD, 2020).
The phrase 'shoulder-to shoulder' might sound acceptable as a Marxist slogan, but has little or no actual meaning, nor practical resonance in the real world; how can Starmer say that he would 'stand up for working people' (presumably he means manual labourers) when he is also proposing to allow unfettered immigration into the country and consequently, many 'workers' are likely to lose their jobs to these immigrants? One might be forgiven for assuming that 'standing up' for workers would also mean supporting strike action – but in June of 2022, Starmer would not officially support the striking rail workers - the most that the Labour Party would say was that "We've been clear in the position that strikes shouldn't go ahead…nobody wants to see industrial action that is disruptive" (Stewart, 2022). As a reality check, it would be interesting to hear examples of when industrial action is NOT disruptive!
'Tackling insecure work and low pay' is another meaningless sound-bite, very much along the lines of something Tony Blair might have said. If the statement is analysed, nowhere does it give an indication of how it is proposed to achieve this goal – again, Starmer at his most 'Blairiness' – not giving critics anything to latch onto. If, as we can only assume, the objective is to increase pay, then there should be a costed analysis of how this is to be achieved – and perhaps an indication of the part that employers would be expected to play in its delivery.
Verdict on this pledge: Meaningless 'sound-bite' politics.
8. Radical Devolution of Power, Wealth and Opportunity
"Push power, wealth and opportunity away from Whitehall. A federal system to devolve powers – including through regional investment banks and control over regional industrial strategy. Abolish the House of Lords – replace it with an elected chamber of regions and nations" (CLPD, 2020).
The horror behind the phrase 'A Federal System' is only too clear – it means one of two outcomes -or perhaps even both: greater devolution of powers to national assemblies – such as in Wales; the possible extension of the Mayoral system in England to include Regional Governments with far greater powers than those currently vested in Local Government. Allowing regional control of investment banks and industrial strategy would be dangerous in the extreme – the potential for corruption would increase, as would the layers of bureaucracy, and administrative and salary costs. The second possible outcome is that it could bring 'closer alignment' with a Federal EU State, eventually taking us back into the EU in all but name. To do this, Starmer would not even need to hold another Referendum.
The abolition of the House of Lords is a perennial chestnut that emerges with depressing frequency. As with other Starmer pronouncements, it sounds interesting, and on this occasion he has actually suggested what he would replace it with: 'an elected chamber of regions and nations'. This would do nothing other than increase the levels of government, costs, and bureaucracy and presumably enhance the importance of London – something that he says he wants to get away from. If the HoL is to be replaced, perhaps it could be formed by a much reduced number of people - retired Prime Ministers and Secretaries of State: Chancellors of the Exchequer, Foreign, Defence, Home, Health, and Transport Secretaries – the logic being that such people should have experience of government and legislation, and would possibly be more neutral in their thinking as they would not be dependent on the whim of the electorate for their position. A seat in such a second chamber would be open to anyone who had previously held a Secretary of State position, and they would be eligible for life. Basically, anything but an 'elected chamber of regions and nations'.
Verdict on this pledge: Would increase costs and bureaucracy tremendously, without any appreciable benefit.
9. Equality
"Pull down obstacles that limit opportunities and talent. We are the party of the Equal Pay Act, Sure Start, BAME representation and the abolition of Section 28 – we must build on that for a new decade." (CLPD, 2020).
There is little here that can be measured – 'pulling things down' has vague undertones of anarchism – far better to have identified what such 'obstacles' are, and suggested ways to circumvent them.
What perhaps is not understood by politicians such as Starmer who see equality of representation as important, is that most people believe that rewards should go to those who work hardest and/or are the best qualified – advancement should not depend on some quota, as this leads to resentment within the wider population. Equality is great, providing it is based on real equality, and not some 'woke-want' aimed at greater diversity. Such a perverse anti-equality approach may have its champions who shout loudly, but they are not representative of the quiet majority of British citizens.
Abolition of Section 28. This is series of laws dating from 1988, which prohibits the 'promotion of homosexuality' by local authorities, and especially from portraying such relationships as part of a normal family life. In deciding to revoke these laws, Starmer risks inflaming the majority of Christian-based opinion within the UK, for whom any liaison is between a biological man and woman, and also alienating Muslims for the same reason. Playing the numbers game should tell Starmer that he will be out-voted on this, and that there is a growing backlash throughout the country against 'wokeism' in general.
Verdict on this pledge: Somewhat disturbing, as Starmer has apparently not yet understood the concept of true equality of opportunity – that is, opportunity free from pressure-group influence.
10. Effective Opposition to the Tories
"Forensic, effective opposition to the Tories in Parliament – linked up to our mass membership and a professional election operation. Never lose sight of the votes 'lent' to the Tories in 2019. Unite our party, promote pluralism and improve our culture. Robust action to eradicate the scourge of antisemitism. Maintain our collective links with the unions." (CLPD, 2020).
The mere fact that the Leader of the Official opposition has to promise that one of his future actions will be 'opposition', suggests that he recognises that Labour has not been doing what it should have. Also, there is something strange about his phraseology: 'Forensic' and 'effective' 'in Parliament'- it is uncertain what exactly he meant by this.
The phrase relating to the votes 'lent' to the Conservatives in 2019 shows that he still regards many of the 'Red Wall' constituencies as Labour seats – voters who 'strayed' away from their natural home and will return. Interestingly, no mention is made of the key reason why many of these people voted Conservative – to get Brexit completed. That he regards their dalliance with the Conservatives as nothing more than a moment of weakness suggests that he fully expects them to return to Labour, yet he has not addressed the Brexit issue, and is unlikely to do so. Taken in tandem with issues mentioned in point 8 (above), the suspicion must surely be that he intends to turn Brexit into a 'non-issue', whilst quietly preparing the ground for a return to the EU.
His promise to unite the Party is an obvious statement, and refers to the disunity following the 2019 General Election in which Jeremy Corbyn led Labour to disaster. What he may not wish to acknowledge, however, is that the Party remains considerably disunited – but now disunity has more to do with a pro-Palestinian Muslim faction, than an ageing Marxist. The rest of this section is the usual diatribe about 'promoting pluralism' and 'improving the Party culture'. A key consideration, however, is his acknowledgement that the Party still needs to rid itself of antisemitism – a key reason why he withdrew the Party whip from Diane Abbott, and why he still does not want her representing the Labour Party at the next election (Derbyshire, 2024).
Is Starmer electable?
The short answer has to be 'yes', but it should be pointed out that if he does get to Number 10, it will not be because Labour have won, but because the Conservatives have lost. Labour need do nothing, and Starmer simply has to say as little as possible. By contrast, the Conservatives have a mammoth task ahead in regaining people's trust, but they may yet avoid meltdown if they can convince the electorate that Starmer is not to be trusted – this is not to say that he is a liar, but simply that he presents so many different versions of his proposals that we cannot be sure which version of reality he will choose if elected.
In the interests of balance, I should say that if Sunak thinks that by promising a return to National Service he will win votes, he is obviously more out of touch than had been assumed; such a move has been suggested on more than one occasion before, the Army Chiefs (supported by the Navy and Air Force) have firmly slapped it down as it presented an unacceptable burden to the military. I cannot remember the exact words used on the last occasion it was suggested, but it went something along the lines of: 'We are a professional army, and have no wish to spend our meagre resources of time and money on dealing with a bunch of layabouts who cannot get themselves a proper job.'
Prime Minister, please note that the Army is not a dumping ground for the unemployed or unemployable – such a role is perhaps better suited to the House of Commons!
References
Barton, Michael (2024) "Top 5 % Income Tax", Wallet Savvy (21 May); https://www.walletsavvy.co.uk/top-5-percent-of-income-uk.
BBC (2024) "Irresponsible not to ditch the £28 bn green pledge, Starmer says." (BBC News, 8 February); https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/politics-68238090
CLPD (2020) "Keir Starmer's Ten Pledges", Campaign for Labour party Democracy, (12 October); https:www.clpd.org/resource/keir-starmer-10-pledges
Collingridge, John (2015) "Westland Falls Foul of the Emperor" The Sunday Times (3 May), p. 9.
Derbyshire, Victoria (2024) "Abbott race row probe finished in December." BBC News (28 May); https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8w4ep92y80
Genevieve Holl-Allen (2024) "What Starmer's six new pledges mean" The Telegraph (16 May); https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/05/16/starmers-pledges-and-how-compare-to-his-previous-promises
Johnson, Becky (2024) "Abdul Ezedi: Documents reveal why Clapham chemical attacker was granted asylum - as pictures show him being baptised". SKY News (27 March); https://www.news.sky.com/story/amip/abdul-ezedi-documents-show-why-clapham-chemical-attacker-was-granted-asylum-13102266
Jones, Victoria (2023) "Starmer indicates he will not raise income tax for top earners" Independent (23 June); https://www.independent.co.uk/business/starmer-indicates-he-will-not-raise-income-tax-fortop-earners-b2363320.html
Morton, Becky (2023) "Keir Starmer: No case for going back into EU". BBC News (22 September); https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66887576
Parker, George (2023) "Keir Starmer aims to repair 'bridges Tories have burnt'", Financial Times (15 September); https://www.ft.com/content/e178f597-8b14-46ba-a5cd-c9f94a2d309d
Rodgers, Sienna (2020) "What does Keir Starmer mean by a 'Prevention of Military Intervention Act?" LABOURLIST (12 February); https://labourlist.org/2020/02/what -does-keir-starmer-mean-by-a-prevention-of-military-intervention-act
Shah, Furvav (2022) "More than half of Britons on £80,000 to £100,000 a year think they earn 'about average'" Independent (23 November); https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/average-income-uk-2022-b2231332html.
Silver, Mike (2021) "Starmer Lies Again: What Did He Mean By 'Public Ownership' If Not Nationalisation?" VOX Political (26 September); voxpoliticalonline.com/2021/09/26/starmer -lies-again-what-did-he-mean-by-public-ownership-if-not-nationalisation
Strauss, Delphine (2023) "UK's post study visa scheme fuels low-wage migration, experts warn" Financial Times (13 December); https://www.ft.com/content/a95cc82e-f0c3-4727-a1bc-85de6b220aa8
Stewart, Heather (2022) "Rail strikes stance reflects Starmer's more cautious approach to unions". The Guardian (8 June); https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/08/rail-strikes-stance-reflects-starmers-more-cautious-approach-to-unions
Swift, Jonathan S. (2019) "The Long-term Effects of UK Defence Privatisation: Lessons for India?" Journal of Defence Studies, Vol. 13 (4), October–December, pp. 5–27
The Labour Party (1977) Sense About Defence: The Report of the Labour Party Defence Study Group (London: Quartet Books) ISBN 0 7043 3194 2