Is Keir Starmer turning into Harold Wilson?
There is a scene in Ben Pimlott's biography of Harold Wilson that I cannot shake at moments like this. Wilson was a wily intellect and an even wilier politician, able to dodge and weave to keep his party together and himself in power. He also had a clear sense of direction, promising to modernise Britain and reinvigorate its faltering economy. It was a sparkling prospectus, delivered with sparkling rhetoric. And yet, it failed. By 1976, after an unlikely return to power, Wilson retired a broken man, drinking in the afternoon, quick to tears, mournful and unsure. Before he left office, he told one interviewer that he hoped to spend more time thinking about the country's problems.
I once retold this bathetic story of political history to one of Starmer's closest aides, warning him of the dangers of power without a clear sense of direction. I tried to make a joke of it, not wanting to be too Eeyorish. Still, Wilson's fate seems to hang over this government in some strange, spectral fashion. 'The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living,' Karl Marx once observed. So they do. Whether Wilson, Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair, it often seems as though our ruling class is haunted by the traditions of those who came before, a feeling captured on page 50 by Nicholas Harris's review of Shifty, Adam Curtis's new series about Britain in the run-up to the millennium. Our new culture editor, Tanjil Rashid, is haunted by different ghosts on page 32.
In many ways Starmer is underestimated as a politician. Although the calibre of prime ministers has noticeably declined since Wilson's day, it still requires skill, political acumen and what might generously be called 'wiles' to reach the pinnacle of British politics. (The most powerful leader in this issue isn't even a politician: read Zoë Huxford on page 33 to see what I mean.) Starmer has all these traits and more. Yet the man before us today looks far more like late Wilson than he should at this stage of his premiership.
At the heart of Starmer's apparent crisis of confidence lies a crisis of direction. From as early as 1967, Wilson began to lose his verve after abandoning his economic plans and devaluing the pound. In Pimlott's telling, Wilson's failure to see through his economic plan became a crisis for social democracy itself, which never really lifted. Without economic planning, what does Labour stand for, Pimlott asked? For a while Blair and Gordon Brown appeared to answer this question, but their model – as we can now see – died with the financial crisis of 2008. In many ways, Starmer's crisis is the reverse of Wilson's. His plan cannot be said to have failed, because he did not have one to begin with. Rather, his struggles are those of a man searching for a plan and finding instead a fleeting politics, as Finn McRedmond finds at Glastonbury on page 8.
My ambition for the New Statesman is to step into this obvious ideological void on the left of politics; to be a journal of ideas that can help light a new direction for this government, and for progressive politics more generally. Our cover story this week begins this process. As Will Dunn writes on page 20, it is time for the government to confront our baffling, irrational tax system, which fails to raise enough for the kind of country we all want to live in.
Without a clear direction, Starmer is being pulled in all directions. His friends urge him – in private and, it seems, in public – to ignore the Blairites, move left and abandon his hopes of recovering voters lost to Reform. Those of a more Tony-ish hue whisper to me and others that this is the siren call of Milibandism. A battle is now underway for Starmer's ear – and for the soul of this government. As both Andrew Marr and George Eaton write, a new politics is opening up, one that is far more radical and dangerous for both of Britain's main political parties than before. History appears first as tragedy, and then as farce, Marx observed. It seems he knew what he was talking about.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
[See also: The rebellions against Starmer are only just beginning]
Related
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economist
36 minutes ago
- Economist
Macron will beat Trump to London
When Sir Keir Starmer sat down with Donald Trump at the White House in February, the British prime minister handed over a letter from King Charles III inviting the American president for a state visit to Britain. On July 8th a foreign president will indeed arrive in Britain for the first state visit the king has hosted this year. Yet the guest will be not Mr Trump but President Emmanuel Macron of France.
ITV News
an hour ago
- ITV News
One year on: Looking back on Labour's time in power
The UK government's official guide to reversing a car is clear in the Highway Code. 'Choose an appropriate place to manoeuvre. If you need to turn your vehicle around, wait until you find a safe place.' Labour ministers failed politically on all counts earlier this week as it gutted its own controversial welfare reforms as a last resort that saw off a potentially fatal defeat in the House of Commons for Sir Keir Starmer. It's a long way from the 174-seat majority he secured last summer. But in some ways, this might sum up the prime minister's first year in office, which he celebrates on Friday. If celebrate is the correct word. 'It took us 12 years to disintegrate,' a senior Tory told me this week. 'They've managed it in less than 12 months.' Even loyal Labour MPs freely admit the last few days have been shambolic. They blame poor party management – not least Starmer's failure to either put an arm around those on the backbenches or to dangle a carrot of potential promotion above them – and strategic errors in how controversial decisions have been announced. Think of the original ending of universal winter fuel payments (now mostly U-turned so only the richest pensioners miss out), which was dropped into a news vacuum and took on a life of its own. Or the decision not to include policies – like scrapping the two-child cap – that would have appealed to the left of the Labour Party during his welfare reforms to make the plans more palatable to would-be rebels. Others in the UK government say this is easy to argue after the fact and the lack of money available to the chancellor means such big changes have to be announced in a piecemeal fashion. Starmer is not a natural communicator either. Look at his initial failure to guarantee Rachel Reeves' future at prime minister's questions, while his chancellor sat behind him with a tear running down her cheek. This is despite one senior Downing Street source telling me that speculation about Reeves' job was 'utter madness' and that she was 'never going to go' despite absorbing much of the heat for not just the welfare climbdown but a host of other economic decisions. It's these other calls that have festered throughout the year. Colin Borland, director of devolved nations for the Federation of Small Businesses, expressed concerns about the Employment Rights Bill, which he said would create more hoops for people to jump through when hiring someone. 'That simply makes it harder for small firms to continue offering employment chances to those further from the jobs market,' he said. 'Maintaining an environment where small businesses can carry on doing that will be key to tackling economic inactivity and driving sustainable growth.' This comes on the back of controversy about increasing the national insurance contributions of businesses, which the agricultural sector has – alongside changes to inheritance tax – harmed firms and family farms. Andrew Connon, president of the National Farmers Union Scotland, said: "One year ago, the prime minister promised 'food security is national security', suggesting that agriculture was respected and valued by our newly elected government. 'However, a year on, farmers and crofters across Scotland worry those words have been neglected.' Labour ministers say the employment rights bill is making things better for workers and that their policies are making a difference to people's pockets, while also sending more cash to Holyrood to spend on public services. Starmer's allies defend him as a decent man trying to make things better in a way that's not showy. But this week he has been ruled by rebels and once parliamentarians realise they have that kind of power, they get a taste for wielding it. Meanwhile, ten months out from the Holyrood election (that some overconfident Labourites were last summer practically declaring victory in), the path to power in Edinburgh looks decidedly narrower. A new poll published on Wednesday by Ipsos, in partnership with STV News, highlighted a trend that causes frown lines to appear on the foreheads of senior Scottish Labour figures. Voters who took a chance on Starmer now say they are planning to vote for another party with 9% planning to drift – back, probably – to the SNP; 7% to the Scottish Greens; to 6% the Liberal Democrats and 17% to Reform UK. This leaves about one in 10 of those who voted Labour last summer undecided. Strategists in Holyrood believe they can squeeze many of them – and those considering Reform and the Lib Dems in particular – to back their party come crunch time. They look at the recent Hamilton, Stonehouse and Larkhall byelection for inspiration, where Scotland's political bubble declared Labour dead and buried only for the party to win literally against the (long) odds. There is also the fact that Labour's campaigning organisation is streets ahead of the SNP's in particular, which made the difference in the byelection. And there are other glimmers of hope. The SNP is the largest party on voting intentions – and it has a much higher floor of support than its rivals – but backing is still anywhere between 10 and 15 points down compared to the last Holyrood election. People are unhappy with public services, are unhappy with politicians in general and want something to change. But they're hardly crying out for Labour. First Minister John Swinney and Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar both sit around the same level of (un)popularity. Starmer is also a drag on Labour's ambitions north of the border. His ratings have plunged so far that he is now less popular than Reform UK leader Nigel Farage. And compared to last year, when Labour and the SNP were roughly neck and neck when it came to who Scots trust to manage public services, the nationalists have pulled back out in front with the public. Let's be honest, most people are not following every cough and spit of Westminster debates – but they do track the mood music. Right now that sound is of a weak prime minister who has admitted to being distracted from key domestic issues by foreign affairs and who is unable to command even his own MPs. If the second anniversary of this UK government doesn't coincide with a U-turn in the public's affection for Labour, there's next to no chance of the party taking power at Holyrood.
New Statesman
2 hours ago
- New Statesman
A year of crisis and political fragmentation
Photo byOne year ago today, people across the UK went to the polls and overwhelmingly voted for change. When the exit poll landed at 10pm it showed Keir Starmer's Labour party on track for a three-figure majority – and right on cue the New Labour anthem 'Things Can Only Get Better' began playing at the New Statesman election night party. The following morning, Keir Starmer stood outside the door of No 10 Downing Street (despite the common misconception, there aren't actually any steps), and promised a new type of politics to 'end the era of noisy performance, tread more lightly on your lives, and unite our country'. Well, here we are. The media is awash today with reflections on how the last year has gone for the Prime Minister. You can read one of them, in which David Edgerton argues that Keir Starmer's government does not represent the true Labour Party, on the New Statesman website today. You can also listen to our special anniversary episode of the New Statesman podcast with Anoosh Chakelian, Tom McTague, Andrew Marr and me, where we try to unpack quite what has happened – and where it could go next. So instead of rehashing all of that, I thought we could zoom out and look at some of the other things the election and subsequent 12 months have taught us. British politics is fracturing in all directions. First-past-the-post and Labour's huge (though not unsurpassable, as we saw with the welfare cuts rebellion) majority masked an electoral landscape that more closely resembles multi-party European politics. The Electoral Reform Society (whose chief executive I interviewed in May) has calculated the parliament we ended up with was the least representative ever in terms of how people actually voted. The 2024 result was the first time four parties had received over 10 per cent of the vote: Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and Reform. In the May local elections, that went up to five with the addition of the Greens. The latest YouGov poll, conducted just ahead of the election anniversary, has both Reform and the combination of the Lib Dems and Greens on 26 per cent each. That's a Brexit-referendum majority opting for someone other than the two main parties. Those two parties, meanwhile, are languishing around the 40 per cent combined mark: Labour on 24 per cent and the Conservatives on 17 per cent. It would take too long to list all the things they've both done to deserve that (please see previous Morning Call emails over the past, say, five years) but the point is they're down together – following an election that gave them the lowest joint vote share in history at 57.4 per cent. That's new: for 50 years the combined Tory and Labour vote would be a number in the high 70s. This seems to have caught both parties off-guard. Last week I chaired an event at the Mile End Institute entitled 'Does the Conservative Party have a future?' (a question to which no one felt too confident about). Politics lecturer Dr Nigel Fletcher, an expert in the history of oppositions, borrowed an analogy from Game of Thrones: a wheel that sees the great families cycle up and down, some rising while others fall. Dragon-wielding Daenerys Targaryen is determined not to stop the wheel, but to break it. This is, Fletcher argued, essentially what Nigel Farage and Reform are trying to do, breaking the cycle whereby the fall of Labour automatically leads to the rise of the Tories, and vice versa. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe The Conservatives' recovery from what they thought was their electoral nadir last July (until it transpired their poll ratings could actually drop further) has, in a strange way, been hampered by a misconception that Labour's sharp fall in popularity would help them by default. It hasn't. All it has done is fuel the narrative that both establishment parties are falling short and thrown Kemi Badenoch's failure to begin repairing her party's fortunes into starker relief. Similarly, many Labour figures assumed one year ago that however difficult the political and economic situation they were inheriting, they could be reassured by the toxicity of their main opponents. Labour could afford to make some early mistakes, because the Tories would be in no position to take advantage of them. What they didn't count on was fringe parties muscling in to suck up disaffected supporters. In a shock move last night, left-wing MP Zarah Sultana, who has had the Labour whip suspended since last July, announced she was quitting Labour and setting up her own party with Jeremy Corbyn to challenge Starmer from the left. Corbyn himself has been suspiciously quiet about Sultana's announcement so far – although he did spend this week hinting about some kind of new movement to bring together left-wing independents. Even before all of that, though, data suggests nearly three times as many 2024 Labour voters are moving to the Lib Dems or the Greens than are eyeing up Reform. But the geographical distribution of the election win (think of the sandcastle analogy) means both left and right defectors pose a serious challenge. They squeeze Starmer in two directions, leaving him trapped. Rishi Sunak would sympathise. What does this mean going into year two of this parliament? In short, things are going to get bumpy. For the first time ever, Nigel Farage is being seriously talked about as a future prime minister (including, in this week's New Statesman magazine, by Andrew Marr). The Greens are holding a leadership over the summer and could select an eco-populist to galvanise the left, or an insurgent Corbyn-led movement could yet emerge. The Lib Dems have set their sights on eating further into what the Tories used to consider their heartlands – if it doesn't get eaten by Reform first. Elections in Scotland and Wales in 2026 look set to become contests of who the electorate hates and fears the least. Wednesday's bond market wobble and subsequent Rachel Reeves love-in means it looks less likely we'll have a new Chancellor than it did last week, but it's pretty inevitable we'll get a new front bench – and quite possibly a new opposition leader too, if the Tories' 'extinction-level territory' polling situation doesn't improve. Who knows, we may even have a serious debate about electoral reform and whether first-past-the-post still works in a landscape like this. In other words, politics isn't going to get quieter. Sorry to disappoint. This piece first appeared in the Morning Call newsletter; receive it every morning by subscribing on Substack here [See also: The bond market has rescued Rachel Reeves from Keir Starmer] Related
