“I’ve changed the Labour party” – it was a slogan that Keir Starmer was keen to etch into the minds of the voting public in spring. Reiterating his message in television interviews and conference speeches, the Labour leader was stoic in his refusal to admit victory, despite a banjaxed Conservative party hobbling its way to electoral slaughter. It was clear that for Starmer, the election was not won until voters could perfectly recite two things: One, that his father was a toolmaker; and two, that he had changed his party.
But what has this change really meant? Starmer would probably say it has meant ending the divisiveness and factionalism of the Corbyn era; in fact, the commissioning of the Forde report – which revealed much of Labour’s inner dysfunction – was one of his first acts as leader. He also might remind us of another campaign line: ‘country first, party second’, as he damns previous Conservative governments. But has all this amounted to a changed Labour party? If rumours are to be believed – then no. Disgruntled murmurings from Labour backbenchers are already being reported, and echoes from the corridors of Westminster suggest treachery is brewing, with leadership bids possibly being speculated.
Undeterred by their electoral success, Labour look like they are determined to make as little as possible out of a good thing. By September, it had taken less than one-hundred days for a public row to erupt over “freebies”, leading to one backbench MP’s resignation, and other party figures – most notably, Dianne Abbott – criticising the government quite openly. Starmer might have tried assuring us that things were different this time, but it appears one thing will never change: the Labour family’s penchant for infighting.
The spats of the Blair and Brown days; the Bevanite revolt of the 1950s; or the interminable issue of nuclear armament – history shows that a battle has never been too far from inside the party. Some might say this kind of dynamism is healthy in politics. And maybe on an ideal level, that is true. But given that Labour were handed a landslide on the basis that they were not the Tories, its remarkable that Labour is already emulating the internecine habits of their predecessors.
Perhaps we should have expected this. Along with the slogans, the warning signs were also there in spring, as dismay was voiced by a number of party members over Starmer’s “culling of leftwingers”. And since the election in July, the government have had more than a few problems: whether it was anger over the decision to means-test winter fuel payments, or the spectacle of farmers tractoring through the British capital – and again, let’s not forget the freebies – it would seem that critics are not wanting for material; recently revised GDP figures will be particularly wounding for Starmer’s government. As Labour struggle in local authority by-elections across the UK, the onlooking parliamentary party will be rightly perturbed. For the Prime Minister, it is a truly bleak midwinter. And with a character more lugubrious than it is luminous, he lacks the natural charisma a politician needs to squirm their way out of a bad situation.
And yet, in spite of all this, it would be completely disastrous if Starmer were replaced. Not that he ever really could be; he commands a majority so sizeable that it would take a significant scandal to topple him. Even so, if the rumours of dissenters are true – and it must be clarified, we really are in the realms of political gossip here – it spells serious danger, not just to Starmer, but to the whole Parliamentary Labour Party. For, the British public will not accept a second season of political mudslinging. After years of fractious Tory squabbling, voters will be hoping that what they watched over the past fourteen years was a finale, not a prequel. British politics is yearning not only for decisive change, but too, stability. Contrary to the media buzz, the public have not yet given up on Labour, with a survey by More in Common suggesting that most voters believe the government needs more time. But resorting to pathological infighting, however, would only signal to voters that their trust is misguided.
This trust is not something Labour can afford to lose, for the grounds of British politics have begun shifting. If the discernible trends of July’s election are to be taken seriously, Britain’s ostensibly two-party system is fragile. The major beneficiary of this has been, of course, Reform. Although boasting a meagre five MPs, the Reform party has continued to gain momentum, and a hearty donation from a certain tech billionaire would undoubtedly help things along. For supporters of Reform, the party represents an alternative to the political status quo; many of them are Tory defectors. The prospect of a Labour civil war, would no doubt leave Reform with the same wide-eyed excitement as a rabbit in a salad bar, as they watch the incumbent government belie their claims of progress.
Its apparent that Labour can no longer be complacent, soothed by the fact their Conservative foes are held in worse estimation than themselves. If Labour are going to stave off the threat of a third party, then they must convince voters that “mainstream” politics is more than just a gladiatorial ring for ambitious upstarts. They must demonstrate that things really have changed. However much backbenchers’ and ministers’ legs might be twitching as they see gloomier and gloomier polling results roll in, they must not resort to pointing the finger. Unity is right now the party’s only means of strength. Unity is the vision Keir Starmer and his party sold the public – it is crucial that they deliver on it.
The past has shown the path to take, when over two-hundred years ago a great statesman told his revolutionary compatriots that ‘we must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.’ Long ago Benjamin Franklin’s words might be, Labour must take heed of them. If not, they might find themselves – along with the Conservatives – hanging from the gallows of political wilderness.
