Read on Twitter
I made the point on @OwenJones84's show last week that the endemic analytical and rhetorical weakness exhibited by most Labour MPs is this: they have a world-view according to which they're the good guys simply because they're not callous adherents to Victorian laissez-faire...
Well Starmer's speech was an absolute exhibit-A, by-the-book textbook case. It could have been given by Kinnock 1987-92 or Ed 2010-5. In fact it was, many many times. It doesn't work...
It doesn't work because it doesn't provide a compelling narrative analysis of what has happened to the UK since the 1970s and how electing a Labour government would change that. It doesn't work because it is simply mistaken that Tories are just callous Victorian liberals...
It's a perspective predicated on the assumption that even if they get into office, they won't be able to change much apart from be a bit nicer than the Tories, and 'care' more; and that apologetic lack of conviction always comes across to voters, who don't vote for it.
Just saying 'we won't do austerity - it's bad' wasn't enough for Ed, it wasn't enough for Corbyn and it won't be enough for Starmer. We need a narrative and an analysis that can compete with the right, for whom Brexit is a story about the past 50 years, not just the past 10....
We need a strategy that acknowledges that the main appeal of Conservatism to its supporters is that it is promising to protect their privileges - not that it's 'patriotic' or 'competent'. We need a strategy that acknowledges WHY poor people don't vote or trust politicians...
Just saying 'trust me - I'm a bit less of a bastard' doesn't work.
