Larry Elliott – the left-wing, pro-Brexit economics editor at The Guardian – wrote a particularly interesting piece yesterday. Naturally, the key talk is about Keir Starmer’s clinging on to the Labour leadership and his attempts to revive his ailing premiership, particularly as pertains to the EU. His article chimed with something I wrote earlier this week (see here) but I think has a broader important lesson for leadership.

Elliott’s article is here. You may want to read it in full before reading this. I will probably quote sections of it at length. Elliott presents the current issues surrounding Brexit thusly:

For years it had been clear that the UK’s economic model was only working for the better-off parts of the country. Globalisation might be bringing rich rewards to London and the south-east, but it isn’t to towns in the north hollowed out by deindustrialisation and austerity.

But taking back control also meant Britain could no longer use the EU as a reason for passivity. Politicians had become well versed in using Europe as an excuse for inactivity, but after Brexit this line of argument no longer washed.

The UK had to solve its own problems. It was no longer bound to adopt EU regulations. It could set its own trade policy. It could, if it chose, follow the example of east Asian economies and systematically rebuild manufacturing using tariffs, subsidies, government procurement and capital controls. But if the freedoms were not used, then nothing would change. And if nothing changed, politicians at Westminster would feel the full force of the public’s anger. There could be no hiding behind Brussels any more.

Elliott goes on to point out that successive governments have singularly failed to do anything with the opportunity. The financial sector, which is actually doing quite well as a result of Brexit freedoms utilised by both Jeremy Hunt and Rachel Reeves, is the only exception. Overall, living standards have declined and voters have determined the two main parties of government are not up to the task of governing well. This has driven the upsurge in support for minority parties like Reform and the Greens. Those who favour rejoining the EU tended towards the Greens whilst those who favoured Brexit tended to vote Reform. As living standards are set to decline further with energy and food costs set to rise in light of the Iran war, the government have a serious problem on their hands.

This leads Elliott to draw our attention to Keir Starmer’s specific response:

Starmer’s latest reset earlier this week was an exercise in triangulation. He is seeking closer relations with the EU without rejoining the single market or the customs union, let alone pledging to hold another referendum. This strategy is doomed to failure, and not only because Starmer is to the public what kryptonite was to Superman.

Logically there are only two coherent approaches. One is to use the opportunities provided by Brexit to experiment with different ways of doing things. With its massive majority in 2024, Labour had the chance to do just that but never showed any real inclination to do so.

The other approach says Brexit was a mistake that should be reversed. If, as Starmer appears to think, the economy has suffered severe damage as a result of leaving the EU, then he should be campaigning to rejoin rather than fiddling around with exchange schemes allowing young EU citizens to come to Britain.

Elliott goes on to point out that for both those who voted for Brexit and those who voted remain, the core arguments remain the same. Elliott points out, the EU is not doing well, with the French and German economies – the two largest contributors to the bloc – in real trouble. He says, ‘Stifled by neoliberal dogma and red tape, Europe shows no sign of regaining its economic dynamism.’ On the other hand, Remainers continue to point out the EU remains Britain’s biggest trading partner and keeping trade are seamless and free-flowing as possible makes sense. With the unpredictability and isolationism of the Trump administration in Washington to worry about, pursuing greater cooperation with the EU seems prudent.

This all leads to Elliott’s key point:

Starmer is trying to ride both of these horses at once. His middle way is an attempt to win back Labour defectors to the Greens while telling those who have abandoned the party for Reform that there will be no Brexit sellout. What he is proposing is the worst of all worlds: accepting limits on Britain’s room to manoeuvre for no demonstrable benefit.

This approach will please neither remainers nor leavers. Nor will it disguise the fact that Starmer’s government is responsible for its own mistakes. Of which there have been far too many.

I would only add – as I argued here – Starmer’s position not only fails to please anybody but is also testament to the general incoherence of his government. He is pursuing a policy that is a middle way that necessary undercuts other stated policies. One of the opportunities Elliott alludes to is that of renationalising industry that would be stymied by EU competition laws. Starmer has insisted he wants to renationalise British Steel and the railways. He has said this at the same time as pushing us back towards the EU. Whoever comes in after Starmer would do well to take note, determine which line that Elliott outlines they wish to take, and accept the results.

Personally, as a Lexiteer like Larry Elliott, I would favour friendlier cooperation with the EU – there was absolutely no need for the idiotic, aggressive and frankly rude approach to Europe the right-wing populists seem to adopt. Europeans should rightly be viewed as our friends! I think the most fruitful discussions to be had are over trading relationships and visa agreements, but I tend to the view that we are out and should take advantage of those opportunities, not least with respect to a full renationalisation and reindustrialisation programme that is typically stymied by belonging to the EU’s hand-binding competition laws.

However, what I really wanted to talk about wasn’t Brexit per se. It was the leadership quandary Keir Starmer finds himself in. For in trying to reset his leadership, he has found himself trying to ride two horses and once and is being pulled in two different directions. He is seemingly for belonging a bit to the EU in all the ways that limit your ability to move whilst not belonging so much that you gain any real benefit. We already have a left wing rejoin option in the Liberal Democrats and two stay out right wing options in Reform and the Conservatives. It seems to me the helpful gap Starmer could fill – one that would be electorally popular, particularly among the working classes he ought to recapture if he has any hope of being a workers party again – is to be the left wing stay out option. Honour the vote of the working classes and talk up the benefits of remaining out, not least by laying out the programme of reindustrialisation and renationalisation that so many people want but that eluded us in the EU.

The wider leadership lesson that seems to be worth heeding here is the attempt to ride two horses. In the end, leaders need to make decisions. They need to lay out plans, forge paths to them and extol the virtues of what they intend to do. Whilst any political party is going to seek the widest possible consensus, there comes a point where there are mutually competing demands and one simply has to choose which course to take. This lesson doesn’t only apply to to leaders of political parties, but it seems to me would be well heeded by those who would lead churches too.