THERE is a real “Oh, now they tell us!” feeling when you read the newspapers right now — more of the political press are open that Keir Starmer is working for the right wing of the Labour Party. 

Even quite soft-left and centrist pundits are worried this means we are facing a “hopeless” election, with an opposition party that doesn’t oppose much and promises less.

It would have been more useful if they had reported these predictable truths when Starmer was running for Labour leader. Or in the earlier days of his rule when Starmer was less solidly in post. 

Back then, only minority publications of the left (like this newspaper) made these points. Back then the newspapers — especially the Labour “supporting” ones — went along with the pretence that Starmer was actually the soft-left, toned-down-Corbyn-in-a-suit guy who was running to be Labour leader. 

Because he never could have won if he stood on his current platform — a Starmer who said that he would stick with Tory two-child benefit limits, junk water and power renationalisation, and try to expel Corbyn, would not have been elected. 

Starmer’s current policy platform is most like Liz Kendall’s 2015 leader run — when she came last with 4.5 per cent of the vote. Kendall must be cross to see that she should have just pretended to be somebody else and got more votes.

But better late than never, I suppose. Unfortunately this late news makes it easier to say “I told you so” than for Labour members to change things, which is I guess the point.

But a new honesty about Starmer is still welcome. Like the New Statesman pointing out that “Kinnock ran as relatively soft left in 1983 and then went to the right and we’ve seen the same with Keir,” as Starmer “had Tom Kibasi [former director of the IPPR think tank], Paul Mason and Laura Parker [former national co-ordinator of Momentum] inside the tent in 2020 but rejected them pretty quickly.”

Or more bluntly, The Times admits: “Starmer’s office was taken over by the Labour right in the aftermath of the disastrous Hartlepool by-election in 2021.”

The Labour right’s policies — or lack of them — are worrying even quite mainstream commentators.

Andrew Marr, also in the New Statesman, talks about “the iron grip on Labour spending plans held by the shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves” — he describes her determination to neither raise taxes nor spending “orthodoxy,” although it is in fact to the right of much of the European and US mainstream, Marr says.

“The huge dilemma left by Reeves’s orthodoxy will not, however, go away. How radical, how change-making, can a Labour government be if it’s determined to raise no more in taxes and borrow no more, at a time of collapsing, underinvested public services?”

Marr says that in “Labour, which ought to be all energy and aspiration, there is a mix of justified unease and scepticism about the future,” that the party should be offering “hope” but isn’t.

In a similar vein, Robert Shrimsley argued in the Financial Times that “Britain is being primed for a ‘hopeless’ election.” 

“It is possible that the UK will look back on the next campaign as the hopeless election, a contest between two parties for the support of voters who do not believe either will materially improve their lives or the country.”

Shrimsley argues that “despite Labour’s poll lead, many contrast the lukewarm support for Starmer with the enthusiasm for Tony Blair in 1997. The shortfall is where the hope should be.” 

He argues that “Starmer needs to spell out the ways his government would improve people’s lives in year one.”

Shrimsley was and remains a firm opponent of Labour’s left — he is after all, chief political commentator of the Financial Times. 

But having got what he wanted with Labour moving rightwards from Corbyn, he seems not to like it. Shrimsley warns about the dangers of a low turnout election with loss of faith.

“If voters cannot find grounds for hope in the traditional parties, they may turn back to the populists for solutions.”

Less calculating voices are also very upset. Armando Iannucci — who is as naive in actual politics as he is cynical in satire — is begging Starmer to promise more.

Iannucci wrote that “a growing electorate looking for politicians who don’t merely promise to be not as bad as the other lot, but who understand the urgency of what’s needed, and can express it with passionate conviction. For them, steady-as-she-goes isn’t an option; they see politics like they see life, as a fight. They are not after financial recklessness, but do seek boldness and originality. And hope, too.”

A few things seem to be happening: Starmer’s promise to keep the two-child benefit cap, the downplaying of green investment, the attempt to expel or block “soft left” figures like Neal Lawson of Compass or Labour Mayor Jamie Driscoll have woken up “soft-left” and centrist characters — rather late — to the real nature of Team Starmer. 

Also lobby reporters and pundits want to appear like they are really “in the know” — they didn’t mind suspending their disbelief about Starmer when he was running for leader to dish the left. But they don’t want to appear naive for ever.

This does mean that the truth about how really right-wing Team Starmer are is getting out after it could have made a real difference. So it is tempting to say “You got what you wanted” to those who helped squish the Labour left and now worry about the political wasteland that results.

But I think that temptation shouldn’t be indulged too long. There is growing disillusion in Starmer — unusually even before an election and the compromises of power. 

While the left was pretty badly beaten up after 2019, there is a bit of room here for us to win back some support from people who were fooled by Team Starmer — but we will do that by pushing for left policies and actions rather than saying “I told you so,” however right or satisfying that might be.