Will Labour really be able to stay in government for the next 15 to 20 years? Here are arguments for both possible answers to that question
I got this comment from a reader on my post from last week:
It's too early to say, but it is possible that, with an electorally shattered post-Sunak Conservative party rolling around in the dust and turning a) right and b) on each other, a neo-centrist Starmer party will start to resemble the 19th century Whigs (the Liberal predecessor).
What I mean by that is, from 1830 to the 1870s (roughly speaking), the Whig-Liberal party - as the English 'left' party - was largely dominant, facing divided opponents, and led by its rightwing, a centrist clique that were: highly-educated, ruthless, well-networked with the elite, obsessed in their own moral rectitude even in the face of manifest hypocrisy, in position to control public and civil service appointments to many officially 'neutral' posts, well-financed, effective in letting their radical left partners campaign for them and feed them ideas on single-issue campaigns without letting them drive, associated both with liberal progress and national pride, able to effectively court talent from the centre-right and woo it into their own network, preventing an effective opposition forming, the only hope for the lower classes to improve their lot, but not representative of them.
Whether this person thought the idea of Labour becoming this electoral behemoth was a good thing or a bad one I’m still not sure about, but I think the points raised are interesting ones and further, I believe the ingredients described are indeed the ones Labour would need if they wanted to hold power for the next 15 to 20 years. By this yardstick - and assuming these really are roughly the correct ingredients - will Labour be able to pull it off?
I think in terms of ruthlessness, Starmer has constantly caught people blind with the level of this to which he is capable. Oddly, he’s still underestimated in this regard, but I think he’s certainly got all the ruthlessness required to stay prime minister for a very long time. As for “Obsession with their own moral rectitude even in the face of manifest hypocrisy”, that might as well be the Labour Party slogan in perpetuity. They are like this all the time, whoever the leader is at the time. Whether they are or not at any given time, Labour people always not only think that they are correct, but the guardians of the only path to true righteousness.
The area noted in the comment where I believe they will be weakest - and I think it could be important as well - is in their ability to effectively court talent from the centre-right and woo it into their network. Labour are really, really, really, really bad at working with people outside of their party and don’t tend to be welcoming to anyone who wants to join their team. I think the potential to get some incredible brains from the centre-right will be there for a couple of years but I can’t see the leadership of the Labour Party pursuing this path, even though it would be of massive, lasting value to them. It’s just not in their nature.
The reason that’s so crucial is that allowing the centre-right space to organise, as well as to realise that they have Starmer and crew on one side who won’t engage with them, and Braverman and Truss on the other who are mad and self-destructive will ultimately force them to reform the Conservative party. They might even do it relatively quickly and as soon as they reconstitute in a powerful enough form, they have a great shot at being in government again.
So, I think, yes, Labour have a real chance to be in government for the next decade, decade and a half, maybe even two decades. But it will mostly be down to how the centre-right responds to the loss. Do they keep getting punched around by the NatCon loons or do they finally fight back? One thing I feel certain of is that they won’t be working for the Labour government. And that might make all the difference.
Thanks for reading. If you haven’t subscribed already, please do, it really helps the Substack. I’m very close to 4,000 subscribers and it would be lovely to finally get there.
Hi Nick, thanks for picking up on this slightly abstruse comment. I just originally felt that the Labour leadership's schtick for some time has switched to 'we are the people who decide when the time is right for what reform when and which faction to favour' which is really very Whiggish. (Their 'oh we might actually be OK on railway nationalisation having ruled it out previously' announcement is of a piece with this, as is the calculated we-could-go-either-way-but-we'll-be-right-whatever-happens exercises in fence-sitting on trans rights and women's rights).
The difference is the aristrocratic Whigs - before party organisations - rooted this in their inherited dynastic privilege (basically they had enough money to not be hit hard by conceding ground to the lower orders and some of them were loosely descended from people who'd opposed James II's attempt to establish a more Catholic, autocratic monarchy on French lines) which made their clique more flexible. Both Palmerston and Gladstone started out as Tories and were empowered by the Whigs deciding to do business with them. Palmerston went 'native' as a Whig, Gladstone didn't and retained his own technocratic / ideologue way of doing business, in the process inventing the 'masses against the classes' rhetoric that showed his distrust of aristo cliques and has been largely co-opted by UK socialism and the Labour movement (although he was of course no socialist). Starmer has no ideological or rhetorical concept of himself as anything special other than as being the leader of the Labour party (if he sees himself as someone having unique insight other Labour members don't have in being trained by the UK legal profession and civil service he's keeping it to himself).
Whilst Starmer probably has no need to recruit technocrats, he may still need to recruit more networkers and powerbrokers. But yes, I cannot see Osborne or Cameron or any centrist Tory popping up in any way as part of a Labour project to absorb or neutralise the centre-right. Brown's attempt to do this during the 'GOAT' fad backfired and probably in some ways heated-up the resentment of the Left which eventually empowered Corbyn.
All the attention is, at the moment, on the implosion of the Tory Party and the splintering of the right-centrists. What is often ignored is that a movement is developing on the left, which is going to do a very similar thing to the Labour Party.
The Labour Party has long since deserted the working class. At present there is essentially no significant working class representation in the HoC. The economic and social situation now is completely different than that which existed in the mid-1800s. Back then, while the standard of living was much lower than today, the economy was growing. In addition the British people were a mostly united homogenous group. Today, Britain is an overcrowded Tower of Babel, and the economy is deteriorating quickly, with no improvement in sight. The Joseph Rowntree foundation estimates that 28% of British children are living in poverty, a significant proportion of that 28% in destitution. That number will inexorably increase; possibly to 40% by 2030, 60% by 2040, or likely, even worse.
There is no chance that any govt. is going to be able to turn the British economy around. The problems that exist from the multiple policy errors are now too serious to be corrected.
Do not underestimate George Galloway. He sees an opportunity to build a real working class party which has the potential to render the Labour Party a rump of academics and middle class hand-wringers, similar to the Lib-Dems. George has a huge advantage over Starmer, or any conceivable Tory, Labour or Lib-Dem leader; he is honest.
Starmer has been described by Peter Oborne, accurately, as the MI-5 candidate. He is an establishment stooge who will do as he is told and get his peerage.
The greatest problem facing any British govt. now is the lack of human capital in Britain. Year by year, hundreds of thousands emigrate. They are the ones with professional, technical or trades qualifications, without whom no recovery is even remotely possible. And the emigration avalanche continues.
Meanwhile Britain is flooded with 3rd worlders, many sick, unskilled, virtually unemployable, illiterate and innumerate in their own languages, never mind english, destined to be wards of the state for ever.
This is what British politicians since WW2 have brought Britain to.