By Tom Fowdy
Just short of two years ago did Labour Party leader Keir Starmer sweep to power in a landslide victory against a highly unpopular Conservative Party, amassing a majority of 174 seats. On the surface, it would seem that Starmer would have unchallengeable authority and would possess with such Parliamentary strength a mandate to change Britain, who had firmly opted for an end to 14 years of Conservative government.
Yet, the British electoral system can be deceiving through its first past the post mechanism, which allocates victory via a means of a plurality, as opposed to an actual majority of the vote, and is subsequently never relative to other parties. If one party wins 35% in 100 seats, and another party follows up closely with 34%, then the first party wins 100 of the seats and the impression of its support is exaggerated.
As a result of this mechanism, and total apathy against the incumbents, Keir Starmer's Labour won a landslide on just 33% of the vote, receiving just 9.7 ballots. Even for that voting system, however, Starmer's vote margin was the lowest of any governing party on record, and he had subsequently received less votes than the preceding party Labour, Jeremy Corbyn, had in 2019. Yes, you are reading this right, Labour lost votes into powersimply because less people had enthusiasm to vote Conservative.
Why does this matter? Keir Starmer's landslide was an illusion, and the legitimacy of his government was weaker than it seemed. Having pivoted the Labour Party to the centre and systematically purged the left, he benefited existentially from disdain of the Boris/Truss/Sunak era and had little public enthusiasm for himself. As a result, he immediately set out about establishing an administration which was unpopular with the left and right. For the former, Starmer decided to launch attacks on the welfare state, infamously cutting winter fuel payments for pensioners (only to U-turn later) and attacking disability benefits, or Personal Independence Payments (PIP). At the same time, the Gaza issue and support of Israel allowed the Green Party to rise as a left-wing populist force.
On the right, Starmer became a lightning rod for attacks over immigration, asylum and national identity, which, following the Southport Stabbings of August 2024 led to a radicalisation of English national identity. In people's minds, this became juxtaposed with the ongoing saga of the "small boat" crossings, despite it being a Conservative legacy and Starmer was not able to halt an explosion of the sentiment, long established in some people's minds, that the contemporary Labour Party and its ideology are antagonistic to English national identity. This all served to transform Reform UK into a poll-leading political force and challenge Labour in its traditional heartlands in post-industrial regions of Britain.
What made all of this worse is that Keir Starmer clearly lacked skills in charisma and political leadership in order to communicate his vision, unite the country and build a coalition of support around himself. Instead, he ended up in a "political no man's land" of sorts and became the most unpopular British Prime Minister since modern polling began. His majority subsequently meant little in practice, and discontent in the Labour Party grew. This allowed Andy Burnham, then Mayor of Greater Manchester, to build an alternative pole of support, return to Parliament and attain what appears to be a rite of passage towards respective leadership. Keir Starmer has subsequently scheduled his resignation for September.
The question is, what happens now? While Andy Burnham has more personal qualities than Keir Starmer, being a northerner from a working-class background and a much more likeable person, many of the same pitfalls that plagued Starmer will remain. First, can Burnham pivot the party leftwards without triggering the kind of mass opposition from the mainstream media Jeremy Corbyn faced? And, if he is unable to do, how much pressure will the left place on Burnham if he is forced to maintain a centrist line? Can he navigate the fault lines over the Israel-Palestine conflict?
Next, can he then satisfy obvious anger over immigration to pacify the radical right; while of course, realising in doing so he is also upsetting the left? If you are identifying the pattern here that no matter what you do seems to upset and polarize one side against you, then you have herein identified the problem of contemporary British politics. The country has become polarized and divided like the United States, a political trend that emerged with Brexit, and if you attempt to please both sides, you end up pleasing nobody. This, of course, was the ultimate fate of Keir Starmer, who attempted to act as a bridge in the middle of both sides of moving plate tectonics. Instead, he fell into the trench below.
Burnham will thus enter office facing two very different ideas of what Britain ought to be, and must exert extraordinary leadership to navigate it, build a winning coalition and hold on. Only time will tell how it goes.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.
Read more articles by Tom Fowdy:
Opinion | The end of the 'Indo-Pacific'
Opinion | Did Iran really just bring Donald Trump to his knees?
Opinion | Why the 'Iran deal' is not a peace treaty but a superficial disengagement
Comment