If we were to build a hybrid politician out of the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition, then which of each party’s main policy stances would he advance and which would be dropped?
Our amalgam – let’s call him Krishi Sumer – would accept the basic permitted spending envelope for any given level of taxation that was set out by Jeremy Hunt the other week. He’d certainly advance strong support for Ukraine and unflinching resistance to the evil ways of Vladimir Putin.
He’d also be a stout supporter of the Union and hammer of the SNP and other Celtic nationalists. On so-called ‘culture war’ matters he would play things low key but probably sit fractionally to the right of centre. He’d be a high-profile backer of the charge towards carbon net zero and keen to publicise this internationally.
On immigration he would say things designed to tell the big chunk of voters who think it is far too high that he feels their pain and shares their frustrations. But he wouldn’t actually commit to a policy to get on top of it. He’d also refuse to give his support to public sector strikes, but would back the independent remit of the Bank of England despite it co-existing with double-digit inflation.
The muddy waters of Sumerism are silting up Sunak’s capacity to present himself as anything other than a stop-gap premier
On Brexit, he would say there is no going back on it and certainly no rejoining the single market. But, he’d say, of course if a bit of friction can be removed from our trading arrangements with the EU in the future then that would be a good thing.
Has anyone spotted anything odd about our Mr Sumer yet? He’s not an amalgam at all. He’s just both of them. Every position listed above is taken by Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer already. In the 1950s, the common ground between RA Butler and Hugh Gaitskell was identified and given the name ‘Butskellism’ by the Economist. Not since then have the two main weather-makers of British politics had so few ideological divides.
Both our advocates of ‘Sumerism’ are content to present themselves as centrist, steady-as-she-goes technocrats. It was notable that this week Sir Keir did not wade in on the side of Harry and Meghan and their dimwit whining as he did on a previous occasion. Equally, the week before Rishi did not speak up for Lady Hussey as most right-of-centre people would have welcomed him doing when she was dispensed with by the Palace, manifestly unfairly.
Starmer was quick to accept the government’s quantifying of the fiscal black hole as £55 billion. Meanwhile Sunak recently thanked the Labour leader in the Commons for his support on Ukraine.
Of course, neither man is generally keen to spread the idea they are interchangeable. So what Sigmund Freud identified as the ‘narcissism of small differences’ tends to characterise their despatch box exchanges.
Starmer talks up some relatively minor differences on tax policy – over the status of non-doms and the treatment of private schools – to imply a drastically different approach on the part of his party. Sunak meanwhile drones on about how Starmer tried to get Jeremy Corbyn elected prime minister several years ago, as if that is key to unlocking a hidden agenda on the part of his opponent.
Both parties have this week absurdly hyped their differences over a decision to allow a single new coal mine to open in Cumbria for coking coal rather than power generation. Meanwhile Starmer claims he is going to abolish the House of Lords. As the comedian Peter Cook once joked to somebody who told him they were writing a book: ‘No, I’m not either.’
The word coming out of Downing Street is that Sunak’s decision to aspire to dull establishment competence is a deliberate one. It is designed to show that after the Johnson and Truss roller-coaster premierships a less excitable personality is in charge. In the Labour camp, it is said to be down to a canny new set of advisers that Starmer has ditched woke talk and refused to get sucked in to backing strikes.
Polling evidence suggests it is the Labour leader and not the Tory one who stands to gain most from Sumerism. The thinking is that it will help spread the idea of him being a non-threatening alternative after four successive Conservative terms in office.
Sunak is said to be readying himself for a New Year onslaught, when he will present genuinely radical policies on several issues, including the Channel dinghies. If he is to re-engage the Tory tribe and ward off a growing threat from Reform on his right flank, he needs to find some clear blue water pretty sharpish. The muddy waters of Sumerism are silting up Sunak’s capacity to present himself as anything other than a stop-gap premier destined never to win an election.
Comments