Starmer and business, patriotism and history.

Doubtless, Starmer was keen not to make the front pages of the tabloids on Friday morning with a speech mentioning the need for tax rises or increased spending, but by making his "headline proposal" anything but, not even managing the Guardian`s front page, the Labour leader wasted his opportunity (Keir Starmer has started on a long march. He must lead for his voters to believe, 19/02/21). Clearly Mandelson`s advice was heeded rather more than that of anyone else, Shouldn`t any "partnership with businesses" be conditional on businesses paying their taxes in full, paying wages above the legal minimum, ending their short-termism by investing in apprenticeships and technology, and having sensible pay ratios (Starmer says Labour must work with businesses to create a fairer society, 19/02/21)? Omitting any mention whatsoever of the need to tackle high rents and the shortage of affordable housing has to be a mistake; he cannot take anyone`s vote for granted , especially those of the young. His speech did not even make the 6,30 news on Radio 6 Music, so goodness knows how many mentions it received on commercial radio stations! Going "easy on the government, rather than developing a clear message" does, indeed, appear "profoundly naive", as Tom Kibasi says (To deliver on his promises, Starmer must change course, 17/02/21). "Wrapping Labour in the union jack" not only is an embarrassing and feeble attempt to woo Tory voters, it is an acceptance of a Victorian and outdated definition of patriotism which Johnson`s government loves to perpetuate. With a 21st century definition, Starmer could "confront the Tories" with a direct challenge, and simultaneously do much to "mend his relationship" with party members. Questioning "Johnson`s honesty" could start with an outline of what a patriotic prime minister should be doing,- pursuing policies of justice and fairness which reveal genuine concern for all of the UK`s population. He could also stress how a truly patriotic PM would never neglect public health infrastructure, allow state education to be underfunded, or pour huge amounts of investment into one area of the country at the expense of all the others. The fact that genuine patriots pay their taxes in full should be added! "Obvious advice" doesn`t just need saying, but heeding, too! Your editorial rightly says that the government, by hanging on to "sanitised versions of the past", will be able to portray opponents of the status quo as "unpatriotic to the point of indecency" (Our view of the past needs updating. But ministers want to keep it frozen,16/02/21). What a wonderful opportunity, then, for the Labour leader to intervene, starting by giving the nation his definition of patriotism. Starmer`s worst nightmare might well be having to take sides in an argument, as Gaby Hinsliff suggests, "over whether Churchill was a racist", but refusing to allow the Tories to dominate the narrative on the subject of national pride would enable him to set matters straight. (How Starmer should respond to the Tory war on the woke, 16/02/21). A prime minister`s patriotism entails more than flag-waving, and ensures policies are put into place which benefit all the people, guaranteeing social inequalities are reduced, and all public services are properly funded. As Rafael Behr wrote recently,, the pandemic has revealed the "penalty we all pay for neglect of public health infrastructure" (The pandemic has made the case for social democracy, 27/01/21). The deliberate underfunding of our health and education services in the last ten years was not the action of patriotic governments, and Starmer needs to say so. Similarly, misleading the people over their history also does the country a disservice, especially as it encourages the myth of "exceptionalism", which itself is responsible for much of the racism in today`s society. What could be more patriotic than promising a commission into the teaching of history in our schools, opening up the secreted history files in Hanslope Park, and enabling the nation to form an "honest view of Britain in the present" through a detailed study of its past?