Labour’s belated bid for definition

Keir Starmer has discovered that technocratic management is not enough – his party needs political leadership.

Photo by by Simon Dawson / No 10 Downing Street

What is Labour for? Seven months after its landslide election victory, this question continues to haunt Keir Starmer’s party. In opposition, Mr Starmer largely defined himself against Jeremy Corbyn and the Conservatives rather than offering an alternative vision. Labour’s cautious manifesto deferred rather than answered fundamental questions on the economy, public services and foreign policy.

After his victory, Mr Starmer vowed to lead a government “unburdened by doctrine”. But a succession of events has challenged his ideological ambiguity. Labour’s early unpopularity, Donald Trump’s election, Reform’s ascent and the global decline of the centre left all pose profound questions for the government. In a newly published account of Labour’s victory, Get In, No 10 chief of staff Morgan McSweeney is revealed to have once described Mr Starmer as “like an HR manager, not a leader”. To some inside government, this criticism rings true today. Can the Prime Minister defy it?

As Andrew Marr writes, there has been a step-change in Labour in recent weeks. Rachel Reeves’ embrace of growth – after her confidence-sapping Budget – has led to the government championing a third Heathrow runway, a blitz of environmental regulations, and the likely approval of the Rosebank North Sea oilfield.

Mr Starmer’s government has also toughened its stance on immigration. At a recent cabinet meeting, the Prime Minister declared that “progressive liberals have been too relaxed about not listening to people” and rebuked those “complacent about the effects of globalisation”.

To some, this resembles the philosophy of Blue Labour, the group founded in 2009, which fuses left economics and social conservatism. But contradictions and tensions endure. In his interview with George Eaton, Maurice Glasman, Blue Labour’s founder, denounces Ms Reeves as “just a drone for the Treasury”, lamenting that there’s “no vision of economic renewal and no idea about how to renew the faraway towns”. He excoriates Richard Hermer, the Attorney General and a close ally of Mr Starmer, as the “absolute archetype of an arrogant, progressive fool who thinks that law is a replacement for politics”.

Though characteristically pugnacious, Mr Glasman’s criticisms are worth taking seriously. Ms Reeves’ recent speech on the economy was designed to rebuild relations with business fractured by her tax-raising Budget. But it marked a reversion to a traditional model of growth centred on England’s south-east.

There was no attempt to articulate a successor to George Osborne’s “Northern Powerhouse” or Boris Johnson’s “levelling up”, which sought to address the UK’s deep regional inequality. Yet for both political and economic reasons, Labour must not flinch from this task. The rebuilt “Red Wall” could easily be toppled again – this time by Nigel Farage’s Reform (in second place in 98 Labour seats).

“Growth, growth, growth” is Ms Reeves’ mantra, but to what end? Without a clearer vision of the good society, Labour is vulnerable to the criticism uttered by one voter in Newcastle during the Brexit referendum: “That’s your bloody GDP, not ours.” After years of economic stagnation, boosting growth is rightly a priority for this government – but it must be put at the service of a greater cause.

A 2018 pamphlet by Ms Reeves addressed the theme of the “everyday economy”. In it, she focused on work and wages, families and households, and the local places people belong to. A return to this human focus – rather than an arid fixation with GDP – is badly needed.

The political rows over Mr Hermer similarly reflect deep tensions inside the government. Mr Starmer has yet to offer a clear rationale for the return of the British-held Chagos Islands to Mauritius. Though the proposed deal would involve the 99-year lease of the UK-US military base on Diego Garcia, it could also cost a reported £9bn – at a time when government departments are facing real-terms cuts in this year’s Spending Review. Too often, rather than making a political case for its actions, this government hides behind legal procedure.

Faced with plummeting poll ratings, Labour is belatedly seeking to acquire the definition it has so far lacked. As Keir Starmer has discovered, technocratic management is not enough. Voters and MPs alike crave political leadership. To provide it, he must run towards the conflicts that define his party – not away from them.