A few days ago, Keir Starmer spoke at the New Statesman summer party. Most of his remarks were of the kind one might expect in the circumstances. But the Prime Minister went out of his way to highlight the threat of right-wing populism.
He may have just won a 172-seat majority, with Reform winning only five MPs, but there is little sense of complacency. With a volatile and fragmented electorate, there is an awareness that if it all goes wrong for Labour in this parliament, the opportunity will be there for the populists to benefit. Morgan McSweeney, the party’s chief strategist, cut his teeth taking on the British National Party in Barking in the late 2000s. The UK is currently an outlier when it comes to the power of the populist right but there is no guarantee this will last. Labour appears concerned about the risks. As one close friend of Starmer put it to me recently, the “barbarians are at the gates”.
The response has not just been to deplore and condemn populism but to diminish drivers of its success. Tough on populism, tough on the causes of populism. Starmer’s strategy has been to concentrate on what his team call “hero voters” – working class, once Labour, voted Leave in 2016 and Boris Johnson in 2019. Labour did not advance in 2024 as much as it might have done with this part of the electorate but the hostility towards it that existed in 2019 has dissipated. The party is no longer seen as unpatriotic or as out of touch on cultural issues as it once was.
This comes at a cost. Progressive voters feel excluded, leaving space for the Greens and independents to pose a threat in a limited number of constituencies. This had consequences for Labour’s share of the vote but did little damage to them in the seats they needed to win.
There are also tensions that remain unresolved. The government believes that higher economic growth reduces populism but is also wary of pursuing pro-growth policies (such as a substantially closer relationship with the EU) that risk inflaming it. Issues such as Brexit raise difficult judgements but underlying everything the government does is preventing populist advance.
This is not simply pandering – Starmer is admirably clear (Tory leadership candidates please note) that he supports continued UK membership of the European Convention on Human Rights – but there is great sensitivity to the instincts of voters potentially susceptible to populism.
While the prospect of the hard right taking power in the UK is remote, in the US the danger is clear and present. Until a few days ago, Donald Trump had a comfortable lead in the national polls, and had a greater lead in the battleground states, where the electors are the US equivalent of our “hero voters”.
From the perspective of anyone wanting to stop Trump from returning to the White House, President Biden announcing that he was no longer standing was good news. As has been painfully obvious for months, Biden’s physical and mental decline made him unelectable. For the Democrats to stand a chance, he had to withdraw. But by quickly endorsing Kamala Harris, the Democrats have not chosen the candidate best placed to win in the Rust Belt.
She is very clearly going to be the Democrat nominee. Unlike her Republican opponent, she is not a threat to democracy, the rule of law and geopolitical stability. If, therefore, one wants her to win (and I do) it is tempting to ignore her vulnerabilities as a candidate. On the basis, however, that any criticisms here are unlikely to influence many swing voters in Wisconsin, I will resist that temptation.
Before doing so, it should be acknowledged that she demonstrated political skill in shoring up the nomination, has delivered effective speeches in recent days, has improved her poll rating markedly, and has very obviously got into Trump’s head. This is once again a competitive race. Unlike Biden, Harris can win.
But she is not – by any stretch of the imagination – the ideal candidate to minimise the threat of populism. She is a liberal from America’s most liberal city. There are numerous interview clips where her answers descend into woolly Californian platitudes. Indelicate though it is to mention, the “DEI hire” criticism may hurt. Trump’s supporters will argue that she has only got the nomination because she was Vice President, and she only became Vice President because Biden wanted to appoint a black woman. She was the only Democrat senator or governor who fitted the bill. There is more than an element of truth to this description and, if she performs badly on the campaign trail, it will cut through.
There is a sugar rush of enthusiasm for Harris. She excites much of the Democratic base of younger and black voters. She will almost certainly increase her party’s popular share of the vote compared to Biden. But elections are won in the electoral college, just as British elections are won by gaining parliamentary constituencies. Enthusing the base did not help Jeremy Corbyn win.
The Democrats did not hold their nerve and choose a candidate better suited to winning this election, such as Gretchen Whitmer or Josh Shapiro, the governors of Michigan and Pennsylvania respectively. But they are where they are.
A liberal lawyer from a liberal city can still win but this requires discipline and a willingness to focus on the right voters. For the sake of western democracy, the Democrats need to acquire quickly some of Labour’s discipline and focus.
[See also: Rachel Reeves has won the political blame game]
Content from our partners
Related
