Keir’s Moral Mess 

(Photograph: Chatham House, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons)

Like the enemies of Cpl. Jones’ recollection in Dad’s Army, Keir Starmer really doesn’t like it up him. After two days of mole-like burrowing in the aftermath of the weekend’s revelations about his party’s candidate in Rochdale, he eventually surfaced on Tuesday to squirm his way through an interview in which he continually attempted to praise his own decisiveness for finally taking the decision which had been obvious to all for 48 hours.  

For, footage had emerged of Azhar Ali at a public meeting appearing to endorse the conspiracy theory that Israel had allowed the October 7th attack to take place, as pretext for the invasion of Gaza. An apology was swiftly offered and there, it appears, to the leadership, the matter lay. A shadow frontbencher confirmed the party’s support for him on the next day’s broadcast round, a shadow frontbencher appeared with him that day at a public meeting, and another shadow frontbencher gave him support on the Monday. It was only late that day when “new information” emerged that support was withdrawn. 

Almost a year ago to the day, Keir Starmer gave a speech in which he promised “zero tolerance of antisemitism”. And that causes a problem, because that is not what the events of the weekend show.  “Zero” means “never”. It does not mean “rarely” or “infrequently” or “if we think it is to our political advantage”. A zero-tolerance approach, therefore, would have seen support withdrawn as soon as the news was released or confirmed (effectively the same thing, since there was no attempt to the statement itself). Political context and apologies would be irrelevant. In continuing to support its candidate, the party has shown that there is actually a certain type of antisemitism up with which it is, certain circumstances, willing to put. 

Zero takes us into the world of the moral absolute, a world which Sir Keir is happy to inhabit when it allows him to attack his opponents from the lofty heights of his self-regard. Absolutes are, however, absolute. They must be followed at all times and in all places without exception. 

Philosophers have believed for a couple of millennia that some things are different to others and must therefore be treated differently. To the Stoics of ancient Greece, Virtue was the only good, on a higher level than everything else. That did not mean that people could not pursue other things – wealth, fame, whatnot – but that they could never do so at the expense of their virtue. It took priority over everything. No matter how much money was on offer in a deal, if acquiring it required acting unvirtuously, pursuing it was wrong and that is all there was to it. Nor is division of things into different categories merely a peculiarity of the Ancient World. If a man offers you £1000 for your car, you might negotiate. If he offers you £1000 for your wife, you will likely hit him.  

If you really take a zero-tolerance approach, you can never trade it off against other considerations. Like the Stoics’ Virtue, it must always take priority. Over the weekend, it did not. Antisemitism was tolerated because it was followed by an apology and was convenient. But it is not just in this specific case that Starmer and his defenders have failed to live up to their claims of zero tolerance. Their justifications for his actions show that they do not regard it as the moral absolute it must so clearly be. 

For much has been made of the political context. Pulling support means losing the seat. It was thus, apparently, entirely reasonable for Starmer to wait and think the matter over or seek to ride out the storm. But, of course, it was not. Seats in Parliament and moral absolutes are not in the same category and therefore cannot be traded off against each other.  To suggest they can be reduces zero tolerance from a moral absolute to a moral preference, and at that point it stops being zero tolerance. 

There is, we are told, more joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, and so the more rapid suspension of Graham Jones after allegations that, amongst other things, he had prefaced the word “Israel” with an adjective both pithy and profane, may well have prompted an outburst of glee in that place I do not expect to see. But repentance must be sincere. With political considerations having already played a role in its treatment of Mr Ali and under intense media scrutiny, it would not be overly cynical to suspect that they did the same in the case of Mr Jones. 

I have no particular access to the contents of Sir Keir’s soul. Nor, I suspect, does he. But if his behaviour has shown him to be ignorant of philosophy (never the most popular subject on these shores – the first man to teach me it remarked that in France he introduced himself as un philosophe and was treated with respect; in England he had to go with “teacher” and was treated with pity), he should at least know some economics. He does, after all, want to be Prime Minister. 

Practitioners of that baleful “science” may be wrong about most things most of the time, but they do, occasionally, have their uses. Such as their invention of the concept of “revealed preference” which holds that the best way to gauge what an individual truly wants is to look at what they do. 

For this is not the first time that Keir Starmer has had a problem with antisemitism. The link above touting his zero-tolerance approach came after the party was released from the special measures imposed on it by the EHRC over its unlawful treatment of Jewish members under Jeremy Corbyn. That it had a problem was well-known. Some may remember the video of Labour MP John Mann chasing former Labour MP Ken Livingstone around Westminster accusing him of being a “Nazi apologist”. 

Some Labour MPs responded to the obvious problems by resigning the whip and forming a new, if short lived, party. Some, like Mann, chose to stand down as an MP and state publicly that they believed Jeremy Corbyn to be unfit to be Prime Minister. Some stayed in the party, served in the Shadow Cabinet and campaigned for Corbyn to enter Downing Street, like Keir Starmer.  

Those who defend Starmer argue that, believing that Britain needs the Labour Party, he chose to work from the inside to improve things. This may be true. This may not be true. We cannot tell. But we can say that if it is true, he was making the same mistake he made this weekend. He was trading what he currently claims to be an absolute moral commitment against considerations which would have no bearing on it if it really were. He was, at best, following a little tolerance approach rather than a zero-tolerance one. Even then, it is not clear he was doing so in the most efficient manner – a shadow cabinet member has little control over the party machine; a high-profile resignation followed up by a public campaign might have forced it to pay attention. But that would also have stopped him becoming Labour leader. 

For, Sir Keir, as his former colleagues might put it, has “form”. Every cast iron commitment he touts has, in the past, proven subsidiary to his own political interests. Defender of Democracy? Not when a referendum gives a result he doesn’t like. Strong on national security? Not so strong that he didn’t campaign for Corbyn and McDonnell. Every time he has been called upon to stand up and be counted, he has sat on his hands. An economist would survey his career and see a strong revealed preference for personal advancement, and nothing else. 

This may seem harsh on Sir Keir. I am sure he is not all bad – very few people are. But very few people spend several years telling the country that they are all good. And those who do have to live up to the claim, lest they be thought hypocritical or delusional. He may be trying to fool the electorate; he may be fooling himself. I know not. But I do know Keir Starmer is not the man he tells you he is and, after the last weekend, so should you. 

Stewart Slater works in Finance. He invites you to join him at his website.

If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!