03-07-2025
The revenge of Labour's soft left
Photo byThe soft left has always had problems of definition. It's possible to label, not inaccurately, some fairly disparate sets of people and organisations as 'soft left'. You can slice it up, quibble and make arguments (if I had known just how long I'd spend arguing about the nature of the soft left before I came to the UK a decade ago, I'd probably have moved to a different country). Some might go in for a biblically accurate soft left including only those who abstained in the second round of the 1981 deputy leadership race; others might talk about the afterlives of Charter 88, or about Open Labour and the strange position of the soft left under Corbynism. But, as Keir Starmer, learned this week, even without definition, the soft left have the capacity to be a powerful and dangerous force.
At the end of the day, the soft left is, broadly, the median position of the Labour Party, particularly that of the membership (there is a reason why 'soft left' cabinet ministers top LabourList's member polls every time). It's the people who aren't Blairites or Corbynites, the big middle. They would like things to be fairer, like public services and public ownership, are pretty socially liberal. But they're realistic about the latent radicalism (or lack thereof) of the British voting public. As a grouping it is large and vague and, suitably, probably its most representative avatar within the parliamentary Labour Party in recent years has been the Tribune group of MPs – which is large and vague and not particularly active.
Despite the soft left's centrality within the party, the drama of Labour politics often happens around, rather than through, this middle politics. I think this is in part due to the fact that, as John Denham highlighted in his excellent Renewal article on the nature of the soft left, it's the faction of the party that has never flirted with new or other parties to either the left or right. The soft left isn't flouncing anywhere in a fit of pique. They're just doing, and just want, normal Labourism.
Harnessed, however, the power of the middle of the party is formidable indeed. Keir Starmer should know this, because it's basically what he did in his 2020 leadership campaign to great effect. It's also generally thought of as being the Prime Minister's own political home, as a student Trotskyist turned 2015 Andy Burnham voter. Instead of the conscious, positive appeals of that campaign, in the first year of this Labour government the middle of the party has been antagonised into organisation by the leadership. They'll put up with a lot, but when you lose them, you're screwed.
This process of antagonisation has come about through policy choices that the base transparently hate, and through a draconian party management stance on Labour's left. (And even parts of the soft left: in 2023 Compass director Neal Lawson's membership was investigated by the leadership over a tweet calling for voters to back Green candidates in local elections.) It's also come from out and out carelessness when it comes to the PLP, who on the whole don't appreciate being treated as mindless lobby fodder you can occasionally threaten if you need to. There's also No 10's habit of briefing overt contempt for unserious 'garden variety liberal left[ies]' – in other words, the most of the Labour Party. As a friend observed to me recently, the general attitude has been: what if you do, actually, catch more flies with vinegar?
An antagonisation-to-organisation pipeline was apparent to anyone who made their way to Compass conference at the end of May. Cross-party since 2010, Compass seems to be re-orientating itself towards internal Labour politics; Andy Burnham and Louise Haigh drew large crowds studded with Momentum types, instead of just the anti-monarchist pensioners who make up the organisation's default audience (pointing to a vindication of Alfie Steer's writing on better understanding – and overcoming – the divisions between hard and soft left). This process of soft left coalescing has now born fruit, in the form of an impressively slick rebellion-by-amendment which this week saw the government forced into a dramatic climb down over its welfare bill.
The names on the amendment were not particularly surprising for anyone who is studying the party. The socialist campaign group; the pre-Corbyn soft left like Polly Billington; new intake trade unionist MPs like Antonia Bance and Laurence Turner; perennial wildcards like Stella Creasy and Rosena Allin-Khan; a significant portion of the Lisa Nandy for leader campaign (Louise Haigh, Sarah Owen, Vicky Foxcroft), though obviously not Nandy herself. There are also probably some interesting comments to be made about the gender splits going on.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
This amendment also featured quite a lot of new intake MPs who won seats the party had no formal designs on. These people are not dumb and have made the calculation that they probably won't win again and probably won't be promoted. They've realised they might as well be who they are – which is, for most people who came in through less carefully observed selection processes in less winnable seats, people of the broad soft left who do not want their legacy to be making life worse for PIP claimants.
Keeping these people on side should have been easy. Do the Labour manifesto, don't say we live on an 'island of strangers'. With a broad soft left newly imbued with a sense of its own agency, party management for the leadership is not liable to get any easier.
[See also: It's time for Starmer and Reeves to embrace the soft left]
Related
