It’s too late for Starmer, but Albanese has two years to take a bold stance against Hansonism and explain to the public his own plan.

The fall of Sir Keir Starmer as prime minister of the British Labour government is full of meaning for his friend Anthony Albanese as Australian prime minister. Above all, it’s a reminder of how quickly an overwhelming parliamentary majority, and the political authority and legitimacy that confers, can disappear. Albanese is by no means at the same point, but, like British Labour, he is being forced to cope with a populist uprising by a charismatic outsider who is hard to wrestle with, to pin down or to conquer.

Starmer’s nemesis was himself. He was not outmanoeuvred by his political enemies in his own party, in the Conservatives or by the Nigel Farage movement. He won power with a huge majority, reflecting voter despair at the efforts of conservative predecessors. The Tories, under Boris Johnson, had themselves trampled over Labour at the previous election. But they so badly managed their charge that they exhausted goodwill and public confidence. Starmer did not so much offer an alternative plan. He simply offered himself, a man of apparent decency and competence, at heart not a cynical politician or old hack.  Indeed, a sort of non-politician.

But it soon became clear that he was not the messiah. His failure was not because he was a victim of events no one could have predicted – a war, say, or a natural disaster or severe economic downturn. He faced no enormous scandals, least of all ones involving himself and reflecting on his character. There were mistakes and instances of misconduct, incompetence and mismanagement by ministers but there were no flashpoints that marked his term by scandal and corruption.  His appointment of Lord (Peter) Mandelson as Ambassador to the US exposed him to severe and justified criticism but did not suggest personal abuse of power.  He managed some crises – relations with Donald Trump, with the European Community and helping to sustain Ukraine through its war with Russia despite sabotage and lack of commitment by Trump – with some skill. A bit like Albanese. No gold star but a pass.

Yet Starmer’s authority and standing at the polls ebbed away almost from the start. He entered the fray with great public goodwill and a lot of expectations. He represented change and hope for bold action that could rescue a nation in the doldrums, looking for growth and national energy post-Brexit. A nation, post-COVID, beset with populists blaming the malaise on foreigners, on refugees and on administrations said to have lost touch with ordinary people.

It was never clear just what exactly was on offer from Starmer, or from a Labour government. Certainly not a vague radical left-wing agenda: he had publicly purged his predecessor Jeremy Corbyn. He had not articulated a program or a platform. More likely than not, most of those who voted for him simply wanted the Tories out. That was probably more significant than wanting Labour in.

The idea that the opposition was voted out was similar at the last election in Australia. Labor had just scraped in the term before and had a bare majority over the combined forces of the formal opposition and an unusual number of independents. But the opposition had changed leaders, and this leader, Peter Dutton, was putting forward a radical right-wing........

© Pearls and Irritations