The Lobby Is Broken: Keir Starmer Is Their Victim
The Lobby are obsessed with the past, gossip, and themselves. Sir Keir is right to ignore them
The Lobby is…
The Lobby, the group of over-exposed journalists who follow SW1. Follow but certainly not explain. They reflect neither the country’s views, nor do do they explain Westminster’s relevance to normal people.*1
All know the Lobby to be bad(except beta-Lobby hacks who align the Red Lion pub with a “personality”). Yet, originally, Sir Keir was a beneficiary of the Lobby’s largesse when he first won in April 2020.
He was different from Corbyn (narrative of ‘change’), he wasn’t Covid (non-virus copy for Sundays), and of course his press people were different (the Lobby either was enthralled pathetically by Corbyn’s LOTO or cut out.*2)
But things change quickly. This is because the Lobby are human (or rather children*3) and get bored.
Sir Keir doing well is boring. Sir Keir struggling is a narrative they can work with.
The narrative was preformed as the Lobby are stuck in the past.
While normally regime change would be able to reset the narrative, Covid struck that cold.
MPs who would normally brief journalists in Westminster after a weekend pounding the pavements, were left with WhatsApps to hacks following Corbynite hold-outs dominating CLP meetings, or worried constituents emailing in desperation about Covid.
Thus the Lobby do not understand, nor care, that Labour itself has changed.
Then again will they ever?*4 The current narrative’s foundations were laid in the Lobby getting comfortable with Labour as a continual psychodrama rather than a political party which might require genuine examination.
Historically, we could dismiss this attitude towards as Labour as a love for the trappings of Number 10’s power. Or, a reflection of their proprietors’ worldviews.
But of course the destruction of the media (as previously discussed in relation to trade unions) has led to a destruction of the Lobby. Chasing quotes is much easier for hard-pressed hacks than explaining.
And the Hard Left are right there to help them.*5 An easy narrative, propped up by great quotes*6 Which is why the Lobby still roll-out voices from a past era. (Sarker’s recent turn on the BBC caused a mild stir — seeing as Corbyn had been booted out 458 days before).
Yet the Lobby benefit because it provides decent content, feeds a narrative that is familiar, and no one is fact checking their behaviour.
This is also a reflection of the obsession the Lobby have with what politicians say rather than what they do.
Sir Keir’s team used to regularly flag how “malleable” voters’ views were. Fluidity within an electorate is dangerous for the Lobby too. They’ve clearly not heeded Sir Keir’s warning.
The Lobby have fallen into the trap of not reflecting what is happening amongst voters or what is happening Westminster: they’re just chasing copy.
One example is the rise of the political support for “friends of Angela Rayner.”
The public don’t care about Angela Rayner (her “friends” or otherwise). Just 46 per cent of the public (as of July 2021) have even heard of her, and as discussed she didn’t deliver at her job (which was to win votes*7).
But the Lobby have decided that she represents both a rearguard action by Corbynites*8 and “friends of Angela Rayner” are feed the narrative of increasing support amongst MPs great copy.
Peak-Lobby and peak-Rayner was when “friends of Angela Rayner” told the Lobby that Angela Rayner, was more than capable of speaking for herself.
Then what about Andy Burnham? Double loser of the Labour leadership, Burnham once said that his Manchester gig was the the only job he wanted, except the leadership of Labour which he also really wants.
So: bad at politics and disingenuous? What could go wrong?
The Lobby, you see, don’t care about Labour or what is actually happening (i.e. Burnham being rubbish at politics, or Rayner’s problems, or Sir Keir’s strong support among members at +36 favorability). They care about their narrative which is group think based on gossip.
So, what do the Lobby gossip about? Well, mostly themselves. Which is why they put themselves at the heat of every narrative.
They want better copy so they call for Sir Keir to be more punchy — even though they know the public want him to be more consolatory during a crisis — and they put Westminster-bubble elements at the core of their thinking.
Which is why we get endless references to the importance of Labour Conference. We are told Sir Keir is going to reset his leadership via a single very important speech.
And yet — no one in the general public cares. Whether or not Sir Keir makes a good speech or not is irrelevant — it is the vibe that will be set by his speech which is key.
That vibe and tone is set by the Conference Arrangement Committee (CAC) which is currently being elected. Moderates (Shama Tatle and Mary Wimbury) are fighting to regain control.
This will set the agenda (and indeed the vibe) of the Conference. Is it chaos? Is it full of scrapes? Heaving with PLO flags? This vibe will demonstrate to the public where Labour stands in a post-Covid post-Corbyn world. Not a speech.
Conclusion
Sir Keir understand all of this.
He ignores the Lobby’s constant suggestions of a snap-election (something much of the PLP have also swallowed) and continues to speak of his long-term-project for winning back to the keys to Number 10.
He ignores their calls for punchier interventions when he would be left isolated and looking petty.
He ignores their constant attempts to drag him to the Left by continuing to trumpet Corbynites.
The Lobby can’t stand to be ignored like this. But Sir Keir cares about winning rather than being liked by the press gallery. Long may it continue.
*1 consider how they believed Cameron’s claims of Remain being ahead despite those of us on the ground knowing the truth.
*2 Ditto Number 10 prior to the Carrie-ocracy taking over.
*3 Consider how they find Matt Chorley — a man who enjoyed working at the MailOnline — funny
*4 During the last Labour conference I explained how dead the Hard Left were (not least the lack of ideas, the growing division between TUs-Momentum, the belief Corbyn would stumble into Number 10 rather than take it which contrasted with early post-17 debates). I was told by hacks I was wrong. Well… There we are.
*5 Considering this specific aspect to be a new phenomenon is wrong — see Ken Livingstone writing for the Sun.
*6 See Diana Abbott ‘blaming’ Sir Keir’s dead mother, who struggled with debilitating illness while alive, for his differences with the Socialist Campaign Group, as a classic of the genre.
*7 The reshuffle that the Lobby decried led to Shabana Mahmood replacing her and then winning Batley and Spen
*8 Hilariously out of touch with both the Party as a whole and the Left of it…)
