Not for the first time, the Labour Party has landed itself in a strategic muddle. In the unofficial yet intense leadership contest, the current pre-eminent candidates Andy Burnham and Wes Streeting have both signalled that the scale of the government’s unpopularity demands new thinking and a course correction and have both publicly targeted Sir Keir Starmer as a liability.
Mr Streeting, who has now liberated himself from collective cabinet responsibility (albeit that was never his strongest suit), says “we need bigger politics”. He calls for a “competition of ideas” and warns: “We won’t find radical solutions by ignoring ideas in favour of just problem solving – as though government is the same as management consultancy.” Ouch!
Mr Burnham makes similarly distressed noises. Out and about in Makerfield, where he wants to become the MP in a snap by-election, he declares himself on a life-or-death mission to “reclaim the Labour Party, to save it from where it’s been”.
Such civil warfare might be all very well if Sir Keir had just resigned following a disastrous general election defeat. However, the next general election is still about three years away and, although Labour is plumbing historic depths in polls, it could take advantage of a fragmented political landscape to resurge and overtake Reform, the Greens and the Tories – even if they all remained below 30 per cent in the ratings.
It’s also only fair to say that although Sir Keir is loathed in some quarters, and has poor personal approval ratings, he is still slightly ahead of Nigel Farage. His position is recoverable. Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary, speaks for many when she suggests the whole circus is unnecessary.
A problem for whoever is leader and prime minister in the months ahead is that rethinking policy is more difficult when a party is simultaneously trying to govern. Not only is introspection distracting to ministers and unsightly to the public, but it is practically impossible to change direction whilst in power. For one thing, Labour is constrained by what it promised in its manifesto 22 months ago – notably, an end to psychodrama and the “chaos and confusion” of the Tories’ time in power. Sir Keir said he would “tread more lightly” on people’s lives. That is certainly incompatible with what is happening now.
Labour’s manifesto also promised iron fiscal rules that would satisfy nervous investors; yet Mr Burnham now seems to think them an inconvenient “hoax”. The party in 2024 did not promise to spend money nationalising water utilities or transport operators, which is what Mr Burnham is hinting at when he talks about more “public control”. Nor did voters ask Labour to re-open the deeply divisive Brexit debate as both Mr Burnham and Mr Streeting have done – even if neither thinks it is realistic at the moment. Quite gratuitously, they have said they want to rejoin the European Union at some unspecified future date; that has wrecked the carefully-worded manifesto formula of a “reset” with Brussels and easier trading arrangements. Had Labour talked in any way about rejoining it would not have won so decisively in 2024; next month’s anniversary of the Brexit referendum is no time to open that can of worms.
Mr Burnham and Mr Streeting’s ideas may or may not be exciting and beneficial to the UK (as rejoining the EU would surely be) but they are not what voters chose in 2024. Even if Sir Keir has made U-turns and mistakes of his own, it is he and his policies that were trusted by a landslide Commons majority. The topics raised by his would-be successors are not random: they appeal most to the 300,000 members of the Labour Party now likely, absurdly, to choose the next prime minister. They are somewhat to the left of the electorate as a whole, far more open to rejoining the EU, more sympathetic to immigration and likewise keener on higher taxes and government borrowing. A new leader will necessarily be at odds with the previous manifesto, the current legislative schedule laid out in Tuesday’s King’s Speech, and Rachel Reeves’s plans for tax and public spending (which seem to be the only thing standing in the way of a crisis in the public finances).
No doubt Labour’s contenders will produce their own leadership manifestos in due course, but none have so far set out detailed plans for tackling issues that concern wider voters rather than the Labour membership: the cost of living crisis, immigration, welfare reform and public services. (Though Mr Streeting’s views on the state of the NHS may be taken as read: better, thanks to him).
So far, the only likely contender who has indicated no wish to churn up the debate on Europe is Angela Rayner. She has also been the least willing to put herself forward, and may even emerge as a nearest thing to a “continuity Starmer” candidate.
What voters make of all this seems to be secondary in what is essentially an internal, and confusing, debate. That is a problem.
