By now we’ve grown used to, some might say tired of, the Keir Starmer approach to questioning. He remains poised and plays what in cricketing circles is known as a straight bat. Firm and defensive, not flashy and attacking.
So, it was something of a surprise to see the Labour Party leader falter. It was during Beth Rigby’s interview, when the Sky News presenter questioned him over his previous endorsement of Jeremy Corbyn as a potential “great prime minister”.
When it came, Mr Starmer’s answer was strange. Mr Starmer said he only backed Corbyn in 2019 because he thought Labour was heading for defeat. “I was certain we would lose the 2019 election. We were not ready. I was certain we would lose it.”
He hadn’t meant Corbyn would be terrific at all. Pressed by Rigby, he repeated: “I was certain that we would lose.”
So, Mr Starmer says one thing but means another.
Which is why it has been seized upon by some of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s colleagues as they implore the Tories to get personal with Mr Starmer, to be more direct and confrontational, to “go for the jugular”.
With two weeks left and languishing in the polls Mr Sunak, they maintain, has nothing to lose.
At the very least, he might save Tory seats and reduce Labour’s majority. Starmer’s support for Corbyn, now outside the party and forced to stand as an independent candidate, is one of three fronts they want opened. The others are Starmer’s campaign for a second referendum on Brexit and his work as a human rights lawyer.
Focus on those, they argue, rather than bang on unconvincingly about tax and the economy, and the result might not be so terrible after all. It will still be bad – an outcome virtually guaranteed by Mr Sunak’s bizarre decision to leave the D-Day commemorations early and the entry into the contest of Nigel Farage – but not so awful.
Labour may yet be denied the crushing landslide that will put the Tories out of power for a decade, possibly longer, or could even, with the rise of Mr Farage and his Reform party, spell the end completely for the Conservative Party.
Desperate days
It’s not that simple, though. There are those around Mr Sunak who say that he still believes he can produce the political shock of all shocks and win. He utterly refuses to engage in defeatist talk. Therefore, he can see little merit in switching tactics.
Mr Sunak as well has staked his reputation on being different from the rest, on his sense of duty and desire to serve – attacking your opponent’s character is demeaning and doesn’t sit comfortably with that image.
There’s also the Labour response to consider. They could take the moral high ground – sticking to a statesmanlike position which only serves to belittle you further. Or they could also go on the offensive.
Mr Sunak’s wealth and boarding school background have featured in the campaign but not as frequently as might have been supposed at the outset. Likewise, his ethnicity and hailing from immigrant stock have also not been raised, except implicitly by Mr Farage.
All good reasons for leaving the hostile stuff well alone. On the other hand, these are desperate days and the Tories could well be fighting an existential battle. They have nothing to lose.
It just might light the fire under their side. This is a general election that so far, at least until the intervention of Farage, has been notably dull. It’s crucial if the Tories are to have any chance that they get their supporters out, they must show they are not giving up, that they’re passionate and they care.
Attack Starmer's vacuum
They could find, too, that the tide turns. Mr Starmer is in the lead but it’s not because he is hugely popular. He’s got there by dint of Tory weakness rather than Labour strength. The country is not enamoured with Mr Starmer, not in the same way it was with Tony Blair in 1997.
Then, Mr Blair was young, charismatic, modern, with a working wife and small children, and he was a superb communicator. He was standing on the back of a long Tory reign, even longer than the one currently. They were tired, running on empty, out of ideas and devoid of exciting personalities. Mr Blair was fresh and different. Even some Tories were prepared to concede he was what the nation needed.
There is no sense of that on this occasion. While it’s true that the UK could do with a period of calm and stability, having endured a revolving door of Tory premiers in recent years, and while Mr Starmer seems to fit that bill, doubts persist about him and his party as to their real intentions.
He is selling himself on solidity and dependability but offering little accompanying detail. There is nothing for anyone to get their teeth into. Into this vacuum, all guns blazing, could come the Tories.
Fight fire with fire
Normally, the golden rule of winning national elections is to accentuate the positive. Negative campaigning is unlikely to yield the right result.
That’s the accepted wisdom, but in this case it’s worth a try. Mr Starmer did back Mr Corbyn, he did push for a second EU referendum and his work as a human rights lawyer could prove fruitful for those seeking sensational headlines.
In his new, authoritative but not approved biography of Mr Starmer (Keir Starmer, the Biography), author Tom Baldwin recounts how footage exists of a relaxed Mr Starmer at a dinner.
He mentions being made a Queen’s Counsel, before seeming to check himself, possibly for sounding too cocky, and adds that it “was odd since I often used to propose the abolition of the monarchy”.
The Tories could do worse than air it. Ever the lawyer, Mr Starmer can point to his use of the past tense, saying he has since changed his "teenage views" about the monarchy.
Nevertheless, there’s Mr Sunak, having taken a pasting for not being patriotic and not paying enough attention to D-Day, and here’s Mr Starmer the antiroyalist. Perhaps it really is time for Mr Starmer to fight fire with fire.
