The Dawn of a New Political Communication Era
We have entered a transformative period in political discourse where rhetorical skill has become paramount. The days of technical jargon and impenetrable political language are fading, replaced by a demand for compelling communicators who can articulate public emotions and connect directly with voters.
The Rise of Compelling Political Voices
Across the political spectrum, certain figures have demonstrated exceptional communication abilities that capture public attention. From Nigel Farage's provocative drawl to Zack Polanski's pithy directness, and from Zarah Sultana's concentrated outrage to Donald Trump's mesmerising ramblings, these politicians share an ability to command attention in ways their more conventional counterparts cannot.
This represents a significant departure from the political speech patterns that dominated western democracies for decades. Throughout the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s, mainstream political language became increasingly inward-looking, stiff with jargon like "stakeholders," "social cohesion," and "the third way." This technical language essentially told voters that politics was too complex for their understanding and should be left to insiders.
The End of Voter Apathy
For years, as western economies provided relatively prosperous and improving lives, many voters accepted their exclusion from political conversations. However, the 2008 financial crisis, subsequent wage stagnation, and the ongoing cost of living crisis shattered this semi-contented apathy. The public appetite for frank, accessible politicians has grown into a powerful hunger that is reshaping political communication.
Social and technological shifts have accelerated this transformation. The decline of deference, the rise of uninhibited digital spaces, and the prevalence of intimate-seeming public communication through platforms like YouTube, podcasts, and social media have created an environment where formal political speech sounds increasingly outdated.
Keir Starmer's Communication Challenge
Against this backdrop, Keir Starmer's communication style appears particularly problematic. While his formal approach may suit delicate foreign policy work, such as his recent trip to China, it sounds almost incomprehensibly outdated to many domestic voters. His speeches about "duty" and "government of service" often feel like an extension of the daily grind rather than inspiring political vision.
Many of Starmer's leadership problems are fundamentally communication issues. Contrast his style with colleagues like Andy Burnham, Wes Streeting, or Angela Rayner, who demonstrate more natural, colloquial speaking styles and appear genuinely engaged with political work. Rayner smiles while criticising the Tories, Streeting plots with visible relish, and Burnham enthuses about public transport transformation in Greater Manchester. These politicians make politics look engaging rather than burdensome.
The Dangers of Rhetoric-Only Politics
While compelling communication has become essential, there are genuine risks in reducing politics to mere performance. Boris Johnson's premiership demonstrated the dangers of government by rhetoric alone, where less performative but vital aspects of governance were neglected. The technocratic assumption that governments don't need to explain themselves in direct, resonant ways is clearly flawed, yet populist claims that everything can be articulated in colourful, straightforward terms are equally problematic.
Starmer's recent attempt to announce ground rent caps on TikTok highlighted his communication struggles. Walking stiffly toward the camera with clenched-hand gestures, he concluded with a repetitive sentence that betrayed his discomfort with the medium: "This is a promise that we said we'd deliver, and I'm really pleased that we're delivering on that promise." After years of careful language and self-control, it may be too late for him and his most guarded ministers to loosen up effectively.
The Polarised Political Landscape
Starmer's communication style has been shaped by the traditional centrist assumption that powerful conservative interests must be offended as little as possible. This approach served leaders like Tony Blair well in electoral terms, but that era has passed. Today, regardless of how much Starmer plays down leftwing policies and emphasises patriotic, pro-business, or authoritarian credentials, conservatives oppose him anyway.
In our increasingly polarised world, populists of both left and right are saying supposedly taboo things to voters and soaring in the polls as a result. The government needs to find a new way of speaking that balances compelling communication with substantive governance. While this won't necessarily save Labour from its numerous enemies and problems, it would at least put the party back into the political conversation that now defines our democratic engagement.
