Tony Blair’s supporters often had a ready-made comeback for critics on the left: your commitment to ideological purity will make Labour unelectable, and those who suffer most will be the poorest. While a Labour party led by what they termed “sensible moderates” might not be your first choice, it was, they argued, the best hope for society’s most vulnerable individuals.
However, as Labour implements austerity measures impacting at least 250,000 people through disability benefit cuts, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, this argument loses its footing amidst a sea of struggle. The government has already stripped many pensioners of their winter fuel payments and, in a controversial move, upheld a Conservative two-child benefit restriction that plunges countless children into poverty. Adding to the dismay, Labour MPs who opposed this cap faced suspension. This trajectory suggests a Labour party that imposes such hardships on disabled people, pensioners, and children is faltering both morally and politically.
There is an undeniable hunger for change. Many citizens perceive the UK as slipping back into austerity, or perhaps never having fully emerged from it. A significant portion of the population, seven out of ten, feel Labour is unlikely to “improve the lives of people like me,” and over half believe the government either isn’t doing enough to spare “vulnerable groups” or is targeting them intentionally. The Labour chancellor, Rachel Reeves, currently holds approval ratings comparable to those Kwasi Kwarteng had post-Liz Truss’s mini-budget debacle.
Polling demonstrates broad support for the public ownership of services and utilities, with 78% of the populace in favor of a wealth tax. Many Brits, including some Tory voters and divided landlords, support rent control policies. Two-thirds also endorse expanding social housing so it’s not merely reserved for “the most vulnerable.”
Some people cling to supporting Labour due to a lack of alternatives; YouGov indicates that more Labour supporters are dissatisfied with the government than those who approve—remarkable considering the party’s backing has dwindled to under a quarter of voters. Some individuals have opted out of voting altogether. While a few turn to the Greens, the party has failed to make a significant impact despite a seemingly opportune moment. Others are gravitating towards independent candidates whose successes hinge on localized efforts. Unfortunately, some are even leaning towards Reform UK, which capitalizes on dissatisfaction, although the party supports cutting benefits for disabled individuals, promoting NHS privatization, and reducing taxes for the wealthy.
So, why isn’t the left capitalizing on this widespread desire for change? While a media environment skewed to favor the right plays a part, voices like Gary Stevenson’s, a Citibank alumnus turned social equity advocate, are finding vast audiences on platforms like YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram. Despite social media’s potential and efforts by figures like Elon Musk to tip the scales in favor of conservative viewpoints, the left hasn’t effectively leveraged these resources.
The missing piece of the puzzle is clear: leadership. The left believes in change driven by collective effort, yet it requires a leader who can bridge cultural divides. In simpler terms, that’s someone who can appeal to older, primarily white residents in towns with socially conservative leanings, as well as younger, more diverse urban groups inclined towards social progressivism. It’s possible—Bernie Sanders, for instance, resonates with both Trump supporters in manufacturing regions and progressive Brooklynites who advocate for global causes. Jeremy Corbyn similarly garnered 40% of the vote in 2017 by reaching across these social spectrums.
Mick Lynch, the recently retired leader of the RMT union, stands out as a potential candidate. His skillful handling of tough TV interviews showcased his blend of working-class insight, authenticity, and the knack for making political discussions relatable. Yet, he seems uninterested in pursuing a media spotlight that often becomes a target for aggressive criticism. Nonetheless, someone with his traits could unify the currently scattered discontent. Such leadership would benefit from an alliance with the Greens, who despite underwhelming results, managed to capture notable second-place finishes against Starmer’s Labour in multiple constituencies.
A successful leader must shift the debate from divisive “culture wars” to issues of economic justice. The culture wars aim to put the left on the defensive, and as Ronald Reagan wisely noted, “if you’re explaining, you’re losing.” By spotlighting inequality and decaying public services, and advocating for fair taxation, the left could oblige the right to justify its stance. This doesn’t entail dismissing the concerns of minorities but prioritizing topics that underscore the shared interests of the majority.
Resolving this leadership void is crucial for the left as living standards are poised to decline, particularly for the poorest. This growing dissatisfaction paired with apathy may inadvertently lead to a Nigel Farage victory. Such an outcome would starkly illustrate the failures of Starmerism, but it would also raise serious questions about the left’s inability to seize advantage from an open political landscape.
