We Need a Star(mer): Why Does the Labour Leader’s Personality Matter?
In June, a former Scottish Labour MSP described the current Labour leader as having ‘the personality of a house brick’. This attack directed at Keir Starmer, although unique in its own right, did not occur in a vacuum. Similar criticisms have been levelled at the head of the Labour party ever since he took on the job. Consequently, there is no shortage of articles discussing Starmer’s personality and whether it is engaging or interesting enough to get the British people to vote for a Labour government in the upcoming general election, which is set to take place in 2024. Members of the public, journalists, political analysts, members of the opposition, and even members of his own party have all expressed opinions on his ‘boring’ or ‘stale’ disposition and what it means for his capacity to lead the party and, potentially, the country. Comparisons between Starmer and other Labour leaders like Tony Blair and Jeremy Corbyn have been explored extensively, with one analyst even suggesting the Labour leader to take on the ‘Boris Johnson smile’. But what is the reasoning behind this chatter? Is there an underlying insecurity around Labour needing a ‘star’ personality to win the next election? Or is there something else behind this recurrent discourse?
The political importance of whether Starmer has a ‘suitable’ leadership personality has been widely discussed in the media, with a few common themes: in order to win, Starmer needs to appeal to voters from both sides of the partisan divide; he needs to inspire the ‘disenfranchised youth’ of Britain to vote; he needs to effectively communicate clear stances and goals; and he needs to make the population excited about the possibility of a Labour government. These standards, however, are not applied uniformly to all political figures in Britain. One article discusses how, during the upcoming election, ‘British voters will likely face a choice between leaders who lack charisma or are seen as managerial–between courtroom (Starmer) and boardroom (Sunak)’. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s public personality, however, has not been discussed or analysed nearly as much as Starmer’s, and has rarely been referenced to question his abilities as a leader. Why are their such discrepancies in this discourse on leadership personalities?
What these debates have ignored, or perhaps simply forgotten, is the fact that Starmer himself has agency in all this: in the end, he is the one who ‘performs’ his public persona. Starmer, like any other public figure or ‘star’, has chosen to behave in certain ways to project a specific version of himself to the media and the British population. In contrast to private personalities or traits, public personas are not fixed. They are moveable, changeable, and rooted in two processes: how a ‘star’, celebrity, or public figure chooses to act, and how the public and wider socio-cultural spaces choose to understand their actions. According to conceptions of the ‘star persona’ that stem from film and media studies, public personas are created and constantly performed, hence becoming points of tension and contestation between the celebrity itself and what the audience or public expects of them. Often presented and interpreted as ‘authentic’ personalities, these personas are in fact constructed and result from both the public image that the celebrity desires as well as organizational and social pressures. In other words, Keir Starmer’s public persona depends not only on himself and how he would like to be perceived, but also on the demands and expectations of the Labour party, British society, and the international political community.
Why do these observations matter politically? First, they problematize the concept of ‘authenticity’ by taking issue with understanding public personalities as fixed and rigid. Starmer is not simply a ‘boring’ individual in all circles of life, stuck with a ‘bad’ personality, and therefore unable to become a ‘good’ leader; he has chosen to perform a serious persona, one which contrasts with Boris Johnson’s public personality. He has consciously cultivated his persona throughout his career. Whether this decision was a wise one or not can be debated, but understanding the Labour leader’s behaviour as ‘authentic’ strips away an important nuance. Second, the ‘problem’ with Starmer’s public personality cannot be blamed entirely on Starmer himself. Instead, the issue demonstrates a discrepancy between Starmer’s desired image and the expectations that the media and the public have placed on him. Rather than just reflecting his supposed incompetence, criticisms of his behaviour and his ‘stale’ stances show what Britain has come to expect of its leaders. Although existing examples, such as past career achievements and the management of political controversies, suggest that Keir Starmer is a competent and qualified individual, these are not what some analysts and elements of the wider population have chosen to value. Whether the current obsession with leadership personalities stems from a Johnson-era hangover, it is important to consider why the British media and potential voters have come to prioritize certain personas and ‘personality traits’ above others, how this process affects the leaders that Britain chooses, and, in turn, what it may mean for the future of the country.
Image courtesy of Chris McAndrew via Wikimedia, ©2017. Some rights reserved.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the wider St. Andrews Foreign Affairs Review team.
