Starmerism is disintegrating

New Statesman​

21 hours ago

Photo by Benjamin Cremel -The decline in support for Labour over the last 12 months has been unprecedented. A party that won almost 34 per cent last July has, within a year, fallen among some pollsters to the low 20s. Yet even that understates the extent of the party's demise. At the outset of the last general election, when Rishi Sunak stood outside Downing Street – soaked by a late Spring shower – many placed Labour in the mid-40s. The more the electorate saw of our now Prime Minister, the less enthusiastic they became.
Labour's declining support in office should therefore be viewed as continuing a trend that started before they even gained power. The 'loveless landslide' of 2024 wasn't a vote for the 'grown ups' to quietly re-assert the politics of yesteryear, but a clear signal that every vote, and every media cycle, would be a battle. The incoming government, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves most of all, weren't paying attention – which meant the opening months of their administration was defined by free silk ties and Taylor Swift tickets.
To all intents and purposes they still haven't adapted. At a time of parliamentary breakaways, populism, and electoral fragmentation, what is the constituency of this government? In an age of Zohran Mamdani outlining complex policy issues with a lav mic in hand, and Nigel Farage reaching millions on TikTok (and Cameo), what precisely is its communications strategy? How do they craft their message to a range of audiences? And, most importantly, what is their message?
These are no longer abstract questions for insiders, or political rivals with an axe to grind. Last week the Government, with a majority of 156, came close to losing a second reading in parliament – and proceeded to change its landmark welfare reforms in a matter of hours. The last time the government lost a second reading for a piece of domestic legislation was in 1986. For the bond markets that signalled something critical: when it comes to delivering cuts, this government's majority is an illusion. If balancing the books in the autumn requires £30 billion, as is widely believed, that therefore means more tax rises, or a break with the fiscal rules. There is simply no consent within the parliamentary Labour party for substantial reductions to welfare spending. Nor, I suspect, other areas such as policing and local government.
That is the problem that now besets this government. Not only was there a lack of clarity about Britain's problems with the electorate before last July – from the massive costs of servicing the public debt to the lack of productivity growth over the last 17 years – but with the party's membership and candidates too. 'I would simply grow the economy,' and 'The Tories are incompetent,' were essentially the positions of Labour in opposition. As many commentators said, including myself, if growth failed to materialise then Treasury rules would necessitate 'fiscal consolidation': tax rises, and cuts to public spending.
Many Labour MPs didn't sign up for that, though. Marie Tidball, an extraordinary advocate for people with disabilities, presumably didn't enter parliament to cut Personal Independence Payments. Beth Winter, a Christian socialist, doesn't want to make poor families poorer still. It's possible that even Keir Starmer hadn't worked out the implications of his party's economic platform before entering No 10. Such trivial concerns are seemingly outsourced almost exclusively to the Chancellor.
All of which makes the next four months, let alone the next four years, difficult to predict. The autumn budget will be another serious setback for the party, further damaging Reeves' credibility, in all likelihood for good. But it is the Government's response which could be existential. Get things even slightly wrong (including by impelling the Chancellor's exit) and the bond markets will punish them. History tells us it is unusual for a Chancellor to go and the PM not to be irreversibly tarnished.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
Even if Starmer survives the autumn, and the winter, which seems probable given his majority, next May brings another momentous challenge. With elections in every London borough, across England's large cities, and Scotland and Wales too, the government could be overwhelmed by challengers to both their left and right. In London, the Greens will want to make gains in places like Southwark and Hackney (focus on their overall percentage as much as councillors won), while Reform will be chasing Labour votes in Havering and Barking and Dagenham.
Right now, Keir Starmer's party is also polling third in Scotland and Wales, behind Reform in the party's historic Celtic heartlands. The question of a new party of the left, meanwhile, is somewhat moot – even if the nature of a Corbyn-Sultana vehicle remains unclear. Whether it takes national form or not, by May expect a profusion of successful left-independents and hyper-localist parties. With or without parliamentary leadership, they will cause major problems for Labour.
Then there's the small matter of party finances. This year could see Labour's membership fall beneath that of Reform; indeed that may already have happened since the party's general secretary recently refused to disclose membership data to the National Executive Committee. A falling membership goes hand-in-hand with downward finances. According to LabourList, the party is unable to balance its books this year, and will need 'at least £4 million' to fight elections in 2026. With major elections looming – and the party's vote being nibbled by at least five parties, a lack of funding further hampers effective campaigning.
Abysmal polling, a national crisis after the autumn, dreadful results in May and organisational finances in disarray: a party doom loop starts to look likely. All of which means that, by next September at the latest, Labour will need to conjure something new: a different leader, a drastic change in policy direction, or both. But that will almost certainly not happen, as justified caution with regard to the rising costs of government debt is joined by the absence of an ideological apparatus to make sense of what is happening. The sell of Starmerism was simple, dangerously so in fact. We now know that a country with little growth, an ageing population and fragmenting politics, needed more than rhetorical allusions to competence and a nice haircut.
After Zarah Sultana posted about her departure from the party on X, Gurinder Josan – himself a Labour MP for Smethwick, and a key player within the Labour First faction (which sit on the right of the party) – counter-posed 'far-left' ideology and the 'serious business of government'. But that is entirely the problem for Starmer. In a world of shifting geopolitical realities, energy transition and demographic ageing you need an analytical lens – dare I say an ideology – to understand things. Until the Labour leadership grasp that insight, the government will remain rudderless. Don't bet on that happening before the next general election though. It would require a capacity for self-criticism – and a renunciation of everything Starmer's political career has been built upon.
[See also: Could Gaza unite the new left against Keir Starmer?]
Related