After winning the Labour crown one year ago, Starmer presented us with a picture of unity. He apologised to the Jewish community. He called for the party to put factionalism aside. He polled well. And most of all, he looked and sounded the part of a promising opposition.

But there’s no beating around the bush. It’s been a year on and the Labour leader has yet to tell us his vision for a post-pandemic UK. It is all very well being the opposition of the Conservatives, which Starmer does do capably, but the lack of a clear vision rather leaves us with more concerns than ambitions. And it’s these concerns that are now rising to the surface. What exactly does Starmer stand for? Where was the support for working class people during the pandemic? Can we try to understand a future for the country after a period of Labour rule? As Leader of the Opposition, he won’t reveal whether he saw his ambitions for the country as closer to Corbyn or Blair, proclaiming:

“I don’t need someone else’s name or badge”. So, we shall ask - what is it that ‘Starmerism’ represents?

One might say it will be defined by the Labour leader’s need to confront the party’s 2019 defeat and the three election defeats that preceded it. It is, no doubt, one of the hardest jobs in British politics - certainly a daunting task. But ultimately, Starmer’s continued run to power seems to involve abating a divided electorate and a disjointed Labour Party.

The pitch of Starmer (alongside his 10 pledges) was predominantly on Trident, the police and foreign policy - leaning into a blue Labour agenda and generally appealing to both Labour’s activist base and swing voters. However, as normal politics has been abandoned and as our attention has shifted to battling the health crisis, Sir Keir has yet to share his defining policies. On all the important arguments where he needed to make a left pitch for social justice, Starmer has failed to the extent that even Sunak has taken the position left of him on raising corporation tax - an agenda usually pushed by Labour themselves. 

The conflict of corporation tax levels has long marked itself in the austerity narrative agenda post 2010. So, when Rishi announced that the tax is rising to 25% from April 2023, it was quite embarrassing for Sir Keir and his Labour party considering the old Labour caricature is centred around ‘tax, borrow and spend’; reversing planned cuts in corporation tax was actually Corbyn’s policy - it’s convenient that Biden provides some political media cover.

It is not absurd to suggest that the Tories’ adoption of a more egalitarian rhetoric makes it increasingly difficult for Labour to take on their distinctive positions in the game of party politics. For instance - while still in the formative stages of being Prime Minister, Boris gave his seal of approval for the HS2 project which began its life under Labour in 2009. Not only this, but now, the Budget calls for £100bn to be spent on infrastructure and more money for “schools and hospitals” snatches New Labour’s mantra and proves to be the biggest public spending boost for 15 years. The Tories have adopted so many Labour-led policies (the nationalisation of the Northern Rail, a rise in the national minimum wage and even Johnson’s hint of adopting Miliband’s proposed ‘mansion tax’) that Starmer’s party, now quite displaced, can no longer fold its hands and crow, rather it should be deeply concerned.

In a similar sense, nonetheless still disconcerting, the Covid lockdowns acted as a paradox, one that provided Labour with the chance to nurse and bandage social divisions exacerbated during these restrictions. It is a shame Sir Keir hasn’t yet piloted a way to achieve this. Admittedly, his team are afraid that as soon as Starmer provides a niche political argument, the Tories and the media will pull it apart. Well, that’s just politics, you can’t hide at bay forever.

Currently, it seems, Starmer is nothing more than a political negation. His party does not have the anti-Semitism or the ideological incompetency of the Corbyn era nor the champagne socialism of the Blairites. When hearing about Tory plans to provide de facto immunity for UK service personnel facing allegations of war crimes - which would successfully legalise war crimes - Starmer decided that Labour would sit back in silence. With little comment on climate change, Brexit and the privatisation of the NHS, are we just watching a meaningless pantomime of two Tory parties - merely distinguished by the colour of their tie?

 Despite having these shortfalls, as with every party leader, we may also turn an eye to Sir Keir’s strengths. One doesn’t have to look much further to see corruption, cronyism and Tory sleaze, whatever you may want to call it, knocking on No. 10 Downing St.

And indeed it is true, Starmer’s Labour Party is not as corrupt as the Tories or anywhere near as irrelevant as the Liberal Democrats, Greens and UKIPs. As for Sir Keir, it seems relatively positive; an absence of vices is decidedly a good thing, and it is undoubtedly what got himself the leadership in 2019. Thus, the mushrooming ‘stench of sleaze’ (following Greenstill) hands Labour with a perfectly wrapped gift to colour in the blanks of their political sketch and Starmer has most certainly not held back.

“Sleaze, sleaze, sleaze, and it’s all on his watch. With this scandal now firmly centred on him, how on earth does he expect people to believe that he is the person to clean this mess up?”

Cronyism is priced into Johnson’s party. The Labour’s hope is that the catchy phrase ‘Tory Sleaze’ will unearth their past scandals. Very much in contrast, the Leader of the Opposition, currently lambasting at the PM until his heart’s content, will seem a more attractive and reliable option.

But at the end of the day, the public want a choice. Labour’s most staunchest voters want a strong political argument: one that fights for the vulnerable and working class; one offering alternatives to some systems we have in place, and most importantly, a political argument that constructs something more than a short-term political fix. An opposition party needs to be more than just an opposition, it needs to present a vision for why we should vote for them. There needs to be something to vote for. And if that requires battling against a tough Tory front, which it will, Labour needs to pull up their socks and start thinking clearly.

And as a year’s dust settles, a diagnosis for the Labour leader becomes clear: Sir Keir lacks a defining story and guiding principles in a way that Thatcher, Blair and Corbyn all had in their times. Beside Teflon Boris Johnson, somewhat immune to his string of gaffes and scandals, we have yet to see what Sir Keir’s defining policies actually are.

The last year has definitely been unusual in a political context, Starmer hasn’t been able to give speeches and campaign due to the pandemic. But, come May, restrictions will ease and the Labour Leader will have a chance to improve results for his party in the coming elections. Let’s hope we see some progress and truly find out what ‘Starmerism’ means for us.

Nikita Karri and Eleanor Carmel