No more bipartisan politics – this is the end of Keir Starmer’s ‘constructive opposition’

I thought Labour might have to wait until the economic consequences of the virus became apparent before opening up a more political assault on the government, but the Cummings story has made it possible now

Keir Starmer took over as leader of the Labour Party on 4 April, when the coronavirus outbreak in Britain was at its worst. The number of deaths peaked four days later. So his acceptance speech was a sombre affair, promising to “engage constructively with the government”.

He wouldn’t offer “opposition for opposition’s sake”, he said, “but we will test the arguments that are put forward”; he would “challenge” the government if it made mistakes or if things were “not happening as quickly as they should”.

It was a fine example of the adage that you should ignore everything before the “but”. When Boris Johnson returned to the House of Commons to face the new leader of the opposition on 6 May I think he was taken by surprise by Starmer’s partisan approach. The Labour leader’s first question contrasted the prime minister’s talk of “apparent success” with the highest death toll in Europe and asked: “How on earth did it come to this?”

By this week’s Prime Minister’s Questions, the very idea of cooperation between the parties had become the subject of bitter contention. Starmer said he had written to offer to “help build a consensus” about schools reopening, but hadn’t received a reply. Johnson accused him of agreeing with the government in private but criticising it in public: “I took the trouble to ring him up, and we had a long conversation … he thoroughly endorsed our approach.”

This was an outrageous distortion, referring to a conference call with the leaders of all the opposition parties. When the prime minister accused him of “endless attacks” undermining public confidence, it was Starmer’s turn to appear taken aback – or perhaps they were both play-acting – saying: “The prime minister is confusing scrutiny for attacks.” Johnson responded by saying his opponent’s policy is “agree, U-turn and then criticise”.

The brief talk of a government of national unity already seems as distant as the time when Johnson’s opinion-poll rating was overwhelmingly positive. Much of that fund of goodwill has been spent on the Dominic Cummings job retention scheme, but the crisis over the chief adviser’s flit to Durham acted as an accelerator for the return to politics as usual, which was bound to happen anyway.

Starmer had positioned himself for it and continues to play a careful game. Note that he did not mention Cummings in the Commons, but mildly observed that there had been a “loss of trust” in the government.

Note, too, that on his first day as leader he suggested, ever so constructively, that the government response to coronavirus was too slow. That charge is now firmly established in the public’s mind, despite a wealth of evidence from the minutes of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies that ministers acted as soon as they were advised to do so.

I thought Labour might have to wait until the economic consequences of the virus became apparent before opening up a more political assault on the government, but the Cummings story has made it possible now.

As has the shambles over MPs voting while maintaining – and sometimes failing to maintain – a two-metre distance from each other. A government that used to enjoy the contrast with an opposition leader seen as incompetent no longer has that luxury. Starmer may be dull, but he seems to know what he is doing. Some of the basics may not even be visible to the public, but he has a press office that works.

Jeremy Corbyn saw the media as a conspiracy against him – it didn’t matter if it was true or not: he acted as if it was, which made it harder for him to get his message across. Now that paranoid mentality is found only in 10 Downing Street, while Starmer runs a professional operation.

This extends to policy. During the leadership election, Starmer subscribed to most of the naive utopianism of the Corbyn programme – although even then he refused to support the universal basic income, a well-meaning but impractical scheme, preferring a more targeted approach. It was notable that Jonathan Reynolds, the shadow work and pensions secretary, spoke this week about the “lack of a connection between what you put in and what you get out” of the social security system. This is very different from the language of the Corbyn period: a recognition that Labour ought to at least address voters’ concerns about a “something for nothing” benefits system.

This is important work, laying the grounds for credibility in the next phase of the partisan battle: over how quickly to try to return to a semblance of a normal economy.

The brief phase of bipartisan politics was never genuine. The prime minister, for all that he was doing it too, is quite justified in accusing Starmer of having put on a show. But all pretence of “constructive opposition” is over now.