The Real Starmergeddon

Labour will be unsettled by the General Election result

A Labour landslide was an inevitable outcome of the election, and wishful thinking that any other result was possible was just that. But despite the overwhelming majority, my suspicions are that the Blairite inner circle will not be sitting easily over the weekend, and that the result is better than conservatives¹ could have hoped.

None of this is to say that those of us on the Right have anything to celebrate - far from it; and there are precious few signs that there will be any political revival. Just that Things Could Have Been Worse.

Here are some reasons why.

1 The popular vote

The Government is astoundingly unpopular, even before it has taken office.

The Labour landslide has been delivered on a vote share of just 33.7%, on a turnout (low, but not a record low) of just shy of 60%. Polling up to election day put the Labour share at nearer 40%. That means just 20% of the electorate supported Labour.

In comparison, on the following day in the run-off for the Iranian presidential election, the “reformist” candidate Masoud Pezeshkian was elected with 26.7% of the electorate voting for him.

In itself, the low level of support for the Labour party need mean nothing. Nor in fact does the majority - once a party gets beyond a “workable” majority, their legislative agenda is pretty much guaranteed. Without wishing to define exactly what that level is, there is no doubt that the Johnson administration elected in 2019 had it (for the first time since Cameron spectacularly failed to win a majority at all in 2010). This fact was one of the main drivers behind the exasperation with the party’s record since the last election.

Labour will be worried by this. There is no fundamental reason why this lack of support should pause their agenda, but I suspect it will. Triumphalism will be hard in Number 10, despite the numbers on the Labour benches.

If any sensible opposition can get their act together, and if there is any independent right-leaning media in this country, they will run this line ceaselessly. In particular, the more significant the changes that Labour look to introduce, the more emphasis will be laid on the fact that there is no mandate from the public. This is particularly relevant for the more fundamental changes to the constitution that Labour may seek to introduce.

2 The chicken manifesto

Starmer has spent the last five years purging the Corbynites and playing the politics of don’t-scare-the-horses. Classic Blairite territory, of course. But they have played it too safe. In not counting their chickens, they have chickened out.

The potential constitutional revolution outlined in the Brown “New Britain” report from 2022 has been portrayed in the media as being “ignored” until the end of the campaign, and underplayed even then. Like all media coverage, this in itself is an exercise in narrative creation, as the party’s intentions have been public for two years and well covered by those who know where to look, as here.

But it is notable that Labour did not commit to the full range of reforms they are seeking in the manifesto. This is key in terms of what could be delayed or defeated in the Lords, where manifesto commitments may be (by convention) revised but not challenged. Combine this with the low positive vote for Labour, and there are grounds whereby significant constitutional changes should face spirited apposition, if (again) such a thing can coalesce.

3 The Expectation Gap

All this said, Labour has been returned with a red landslide and 411 seats. Simple thinking in the leftist media and indeed on the government benches will press the party to be bolder; ignoring the fragility of the victory. (See here for an illustration between the record gap between votes and seats.)

This will create its own dynamic between the core at Number 10 (concerned with reality) and the party, media and base, believing in the landslide, and wanting to act whilst the right is hopelessly divided. They may be right; this is probably indeed the best time to act, pressing the sort of scorched-earth programme adopted in the first months of the Tusk government in Poland. The signs of the past years, though, and the election campaign itself, point to Starmer’s core team being more cautious.

As the gap between the two poles of the party widens, tensions will increase in managing expectations. The early reforms that are enacted are not likely to be popular, being:

• More technocratic in nature (as these will take longest to bear fruit), such as planning reform or windmill dynamism; or

• Fundamentally contentious with the left, in particular reforms to the NHS (Wes Streeting declaring the NHS as “broken” from day 1 in office) or welfare reforms.

The temptation will be for the base to be kept at bay with some easy “wins”, and this probably reignites the culture wars. Unlike in Poland, there aren’t swathes of the Establishment to be purged, or legislation to be passed, as the Tories have given them away already. The key to the “woke being put away” is at election time, and Labour will probably gamble that it is the year before polling rather than the intervening period that matters. However, it will keep the right alive rather than quiet, and undermine the “sensible” strategy for a second term.

4 The Green-Green Alliance

Including Corbyn, five independents whose candidacy was based on Islamic identity were elected, together with four Green Party representatives, who (generally) took a very pro-Palestinian view (although note that two of these were in rural constituencies where these dynamics would not apply).

This (Islamic) Green and (Eco) Green alliance will be the challenge from Labour from the left in the future. Even if we take out the two rural constituencies, the Green-Green Alliance has one more MP than Reform.

In addition to this, here 5Pillars boast about six seats where Islamic independents registered “strong second places” of being within 1,700 votes of winning - including that of Health Secretary Wes Streeting in Ilford North. How do you think demographics are going to trend in these constituencies in the next five years?

Naturally, tensions are heightened at the moment because of ongoing Israel/Palestine situation, which we can’t expect to be ongoing at the next election. But neither can we expect a peaceful resolution; at the very least there will (from the pro-Palestinian side) be scores to be settled.

The truth is that we now have a block of explicitly Islamic sectarian seats in the House of Commons. And, now that is has been established, and regardless of what happens in Gaza, they will find every possible cause to exploit their position - if nothing else, the electoral logic will require it.

Whether that be appealing to the Pakistani community over Kashmir or (potentially) increasing communalism in India after Modi’s narrower-than-expected victory, or (again potentially) a resurgence of fighting in the Turkey/Syria/Iraq nexus, it is a fair bet that there will be no end of issues to exploit with a call to the Ummah. Or even a particularly spicy India/Pakistan cricket match. As Samuel P. Huntington noted² the Islamic world tends to be a hotbed of conflict, and don’t expect that to change any time soon.

Communalism has come to British politics and is not going anywhere. It will worry, divide and eat into Labour; and feed the Right.

5 The Wider World

Much as it pains me to say, the UK public appears to have bought the regime Putin=Hitler line on the Russia/Ukraine war, and the parties have been united in their outlook, with only Galloway and Farage offering alternative views from the sidelines.

Nonetheless, it is surely certain that the war will end in some sort of negotiated settlement some time before the next election, and possibly even as early as this year. Starmer will have to deliver a potentially embarrassing volte face, and risk the charge of being portrayed as weak on defence to a British public well insulated from the war. (Note here that even the Poles are becoming sceptical.)

There is an easy escape route for Starmer: to claim that the war was already lost when he took office and to lay the blame at the feet of the previous administration, which provided Kiev with warm words but insufficient arms. It will still be a stark admission. Part of me wonders whether the leaden David Lammy is in place at the Foreign Office to take the fall when this happens.

Elsewhere, it would be foolish to guess what could happen internationally in the next five years. But, as I have said before, I expect that Trump will take the presidency in November, and the rise of “populism” on the continent will continue; at the same time the EU Commission will retreat ever further into technocratic centralism. (A move which will provide a thematic rhyme to the democratic deficit of our own election.) There are bound to be calls to left to restart a “Rejoin” campaign (see point 3 above). New MP and son of Sue Gray Liam Conlon seems to be an early leader on this issue. This will create further problems for the centre of the party, who (in the words of Tony Blair) want to put the issue away for a generation.

6 Managing the Landslide

A substantial majority brings its own problems. The traditional ways of that governments manage backbenchers are, firstly , the payroll vote: those ministers, parliamentary private secretaries (“bag carriers”) and other assorted hangers-on who are obligated to vote with the government on any whipped matter. This number is not fixed: for example, appointing ministers in the Lords (such as Cameron) reduces the potential number neutralised in the Commons. Here, the payroll vote in the last government was estimated at 150-160 MPs. So, somewhere approaching half of the Tories’ MPs were unable to rebel; this may be nearer a third with in the new administration.

Secondly, there is simple ambition: MPs want to keep their noses clean in the hope of preferment. And lastly, there are the “dark arts” of the Whips: the matters “hushed up” which are kept in reserve to be used when appropriate. It seems to have been a particular feature of the selection processes for the Tories in recent years; most Labour newbies are likely to have been vetted and to have led exemplary, if monotonous, lives before their recent electoral successes.

Notable, though, is the seeming lack of talent in Labour as a whole. In the first few days, we have seen ministerial appointments who will take their place in the Lords, not the Commons: some examples are here; the most controversial of whom is probably Sir Patrick Vallance, moving from “independent” Chief Scientific Adviser to the (now) opposition, to minister in the new administration, without any illusion of democracy about it.

But the message to the country - “The adults back in the room” - will be received differently in the Commons. I expect few of the new intake to have the spirit to hear the message and be happy to rebel openly, but it will tend to increase factionalism and harm party management.

All in all, it’s a telling admission of the weakness of the Labour government, and the major victim will be the illusion that our votes matter.

7 Starmergeddon

Finally, let’s get back to the election itself, and a central issue. In an election where a dead donkey would have walked home, Starmer flopped. Against (whatever reasons we think) Rishi Monsoonak and Sir Ed “Mr Blobby” Davey. He’s an electoral liability. The inner sanctum of the Labour Party (read: Blair and Co) must be concerned - already - that he would not be a safe bet in a competitive election. Whatever the benefit of the message of “stability”, there must, a handful of days into his premiership, be a good chance that he will not fight the next election as Prime Minister.

Add to this the fact that he will be 66 if the next election is in five years time - and thus, unless it would be assumed that he would not serve a full term (in itself an admission fraught with electoral danger), would be looking to be Prime Minister at 71. Now, personally, I would much prefer to see men of that age in Number 10 than the modern fetish for youth, but it is not in keeping with trends since Blair himself. His age and unpopularity will be a source of competition and factionalism within the party. All of which will lead to instability; noise which would have been much quieter had he secured the 40% vote share the polls were predicting.

There is one obvious caveat: the dearth of talent on the front benches. Joint favourites as I write this are Rachel Reeves (as wooden as Starmer), Andy Burnham (surely regretting not returning to the Commons for this election) and Wes Streeting (who will probably be the most capable performer in the coming years, ticks a diversity box, but whose seat is under pressure from the Islamic vote and may have to push through unpopular NHS reform).

It’s very unstable. But unless they’re more stupid than I think, they will be on the early stages of manoeuvres, even now.

Having raised your hopes, let me now seek to dash them.

Firstly, I have outlined some lines of defence that the opposition could run to make Labour’s legislative agenda as hard as possible to implement. It is obvious that the Right is in a mess, and there are many months (if not years) of uncertainty ahead - even whether there is the coherent will (whether that be genuine or the latest outgrowth of “democracy”) for it to happen at all. Opposition is as likely to come from a lone voice inside, or a campaign outside, the Westminster/media nexus. And we all know how hard that is to break, if the regime is set against it.

Secondly, and more importantly: irrespective of everything I have said here, a determined government could force everything it wanted through, in a relatively short timescale, with only the window-dressing of democracy about it. Please don’t think that in this article I have come round to a point of view that the circus of Westminster - the “Potemkin Cabinets” referred to by Dominic Cummings - are where power lies. Our country could be irreparably harmed (as Hitchens has warned) by a determined Prime Minister, backed by a compliant Civil Service and a team led by Sue Gray - before we all know know it. It could be that the fragile result is taken by the Labour party as a cue to accelerate their agenda whilst it can.

But I think that Labour will be significantly disoriented by Thursday. Blair is today being public about one central aspect of his agenda - using illegal immigration to push through digital ID and neuter populism. My feeling is that a more relaxed ex-Prime Minister would be more reticent in the shadow of such a landslide, and allow the victorious leader the spotlight.

Apart from anything else, it’s been a good result for the sceptics of democracy. Let’s do what we can to spread this message.

The concept of “political capital” - never defined, just assumed - is much talked about, and over-stressed. What really matters is political will. We will see whether Starmer’s Labour has it or not.

1. Not to be confused with Conservatives

2. See “The Clash of Civilizations”, in particular Chapter 10