UNHERD Why is Keir Starmer comparing himself to Clement Attlee? By Richard Johnson Starmer spoke for the most part in platitudes. - December 3, 2024 - 10:00am

UNHERD 

Why is Keir Starmer comparing himself to Clement Attlee?

By Richard Johnson

Starmer spoke for the most part in platitudes. 

Credit: Getty

December 3, 2024 - 10:00am

Addressing the Lord Mayor’s Banquet at the Guildhall on Monday, Keir Starmer observed that the Great Moderation — a period from the mid-1980s to 2007 apparently characterised by global stability, low inflation, and sustained economic growth — was no more. In painting a picture of a dangerous and volatile world, he surmised that “real” foreign policy is characterised by disruption rather than stability.

These blindingly obvious statements were the highlights of a speech that, much like the reputation of the man himself, was disappointingly bland. Starmer spoke for the most part in platitudes, with an emphasis on Britain being a rule-following nation, whose conscientiousness would be the envy of the world.

There were striking omissions. Starmer’s decision to transfer sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, against the wishes of the Chagossian people, was notably absent in his remarks. Proposals like expanding the size of the permanent membership of the UN Security Council, or even giving up Britain’s permanent membership, were unaddressed.

The foreign policy positions which Starmer staked out differed little in substance from those of the previous Conservative government. Starmer pledged to support Nato, Ukraine, the “special relationship” with America, and co-operation with the EU, while ruling out a customs union, freedom of movement, or membership. There wasn’t a great deal in Starmer’s speech that wouldn’t have been said by Rishi Sunak or even Boris Johnson.

Yet it wasn’t his Tory predecessors to whom Starmer compared himself but, rather, Clement Attlee and the post-war Labour government. Facing a dangerous world and a domestic economic and social crisis after the Second World War, Starmer argued, Attlee showed that Britain could pursue the national interest and internationalism. There was no contradiction between the two.

As a historian of the Labour Party, I feel a certain familiarity, even intimacy, with the colourful cast of characters who made up the great Labour governments of old (emphasis on the “old”). And when it came to this moment in Starmer’s speech, I felt inclined to say, “I knew Clem Attlee. He was a friend of mine. You, Prime Minister, are no Clem Attlee”. For Starmer’s speech showed a fundamental misunderstanding of the Attlee government’s approach to foreign policy.

To Starmer, British foreign policy is defined by being “all of the above”. Britain doesn’t have to choose between Europe and America. It can be close to both. Britain can be both a competitor and a friend of China. Britain can pursue its national interests and follow the rules (and rulings) of international institutions. No hard choices have to be made. Britain can just be a good, responsible country. We’ll be the envy of the world in how nicely we play by the rules, get along with everyone and still get so much out of all our relationships.

Clement Attlee and his government, notably his foreign secretary Ernest Bevin, realised that foreign policy required making difficult but principled choices. It was not possible to have an “all of the above” approach to foreign policy. It is in making tough choices that is where true foreign policy vision and leadership are formed. Leadership is not pottering about and hoping that if we’re nice to all, then they’ll be nice back. (The difference is captured in a wonderful German cartoon from 1950 showing Attlee and Bevin squaring off against the West German chancellor Konrad Adenauer and French foreign minister Robert Schuman.)

Moreover, the Attlee government, unlike the Starmer government, was characterised by a radical and distinctive foreign policy vision. Attlee sought to initiate the transformation of the British Empire into the Commonwealth of Nations. In doing so, Attlee saw a genuinely distinctive role for the United Kingdom, separate from both Europe and the United States. It was no mean feat for the then PM to secure the continued membership of the Indian republic within the Commonwealth, with the British monarch as the head of the organisation.

Today, our political class lacks this kind of imagination. Can you really envision Starmer or most members of the Cabinet dreaming up something on the scale and ambition of the Commonwealth and actually following through? This is not a partisan point. It’s true for our entire political class. The scale of ambition is shockingly small. The range of policy options is shockingly truncated. Starmer’s Mansion House speech simply laid bare the continuing dreariness.

Richard Johnson is a Senior Lecturer in Politics at Queen Mary University of London.