We are living through a political theatre of cruelty and hatred. We have a broken Prime Minister, a ruling party that is eating itself and at local level, elected councillors who joke about melting down black people to fill potholes and believe the Jews are at the centre of international conspiracies.
As I write amid a fast-changing tumble of events at Westminster, we are close to a full-on left-vs-right battle for the soul of the Labour government. As MP after MP, junior minister after junior minister, deserts Keir Starmer, the authority of the state is visibly crumbling in a way all too familiar after the downfall of Boris Johnson. The bond markets have been watching and are already jacking up the price of British debt. Ahead of us is the possibility of a complete fiscal collapse: opposition MPs talk privately and with excitement about an implosion big enough to cause an emergency general election.
We probably have not yet seen anything like the full impact of the shortages and price rises caused by the Iran war. An angry public isn’t going to get any happier. The likeliest outcome is an eventual Reform government. True, its share of the national vote has fallen, not risen. But in a multi-party contest, Nigel Farage is the formidable national challenger with the alternative story and political momentum to bury social democracy in Britain.
Many on the left believe that, if only voters can be persuaded to think more about the £5m personal donation Farage took, or his connections to cryptocurrency, or what he said at school, Britain will turn on him and his movement will collapse. They are deluded. He is the stick voters are using in their anger to beat those they blame. They aren’t going to examine the stick very closely. They just want it to hurt.
At this dangerous moment, there are very hard questions for Labour MPs. Is the risk of Starmercide worth it? But, if they pull back, is there genuine political hope? Or, to put it brutally: in a head-to-head contest with Farage, do they really think Keir Starmer can win?
The Prime Minister answers by reminding them of his general election mandate, won less than two years ago. His authority derives not from the party but the voters, with whom he has a deal to change Britain. But the vast numbers who voted against his party this month – and Labour MPs confirm this month was personal – have destroyed that previous moral authority. Are votes to be taken seriously, or are they not?
The coming weeks will be dominated by the bubbling drama inside Labour. But something equal and opposite is happening on the other side of politics. Reform will now be taken even more seriously by the right-wing media and the BBC; more money will flow into its coffers; more advisers from think tanks and business will come to its aide. With millions of former Labour and Tory supporters having voted for Reform across Britain, neither Labour nor the Conservative opposition can any longer afford to abuse the party’s voters as deluded or racist.
No Labour leader can change any of that. Politically, this is a new world. But there are actions that can be taken now, which could help the centre left fend off the populist right, and which are urgent. There are also actions that could make everything far, far worse.
What can help? In two words, growth and security. Rachel Reeves had it right when she came into the Treasury and promised that growth would be her priority. But she – or, at any rate, the Labour government – has failed to deliver this. To be fair, just before the brutal thwack of the Iran war arrived, there were the first signs that things were turning round. No wonder Reeves was angry. But you can’t load National Insurance increases, new workers’ rights legislation and a higher minimum wage simultaneously on to businesses without there being an impact on jobs.
The pity is, there is a really strong story to tell about Britain’s economic future, starting with our 800 or so fast-growing tech companies, ranging from life sciences to quantum and robotics. In the words of the economist and journalist Will Hutton, who has been messianic on the subject, “If we want growth, we have to get wholeheartedly behind these 800… This will demand up to five times the current levels of scale-up investment.” Britain also has plenty of investment, with a venture capital industry that is outstanding across Europe.
If ministers could bring both together, and return to the pensions investment reforms they were scared off from, could we begin to end our reliance on US capital and on flogging abroad the firms – that is, the brain power, the entrepreneurialism and the jobs – that should be the basis of our better future?
There are other ideas as well, of course, and Labour needs to look, in a spirit of generosity, in all directions. The new Substack publication Arguably, founded by our former New Statesman colleague George Eaton, has produced a growth manifesto including an end to the triple lock, rejoining the EU, ending punitive marginal tax rates and the replacement of stamp duty. What is needed isn’t the digging up of surprising new ideas but genuine energy and heft from the centre to put the ideas already there into practice – something we haven’t had so far under Starmer. No 10 should have a growth unit, with authority over the Treasury.
In her demolition of Starmer’s record, which seemed to cast her in the unlikely role of Joan the Baptist to Burnham’s Saviour, Angela Rayner had growth ideas, including unleashing a building boom and boosting community ownership. But she pivoted towards wealth taxes, without spelling out what she meant, promoted nationalisation without discussing its cost and suggested further rises in the minimum wage. She did not mention the EU. This is catnip for left-wing MPs but is already inflaming the fears on the right about a full-blown debt crisis. They would say that. But we are in a genuinely fragile economic position.
The second obvious area for urgent action is defence, on which Rayner is more forthright. We are badly undefended. The defence investment plan on which so many companies depend has been sitting on the Prime Minister’s desk for far too long already. In his speech responding to the local elections, Starmer didn’t mention it. Andy Burnham has a coherent answer on this, which melds left social democracy with a focus on resilience and defence. Whether it would be tolerated by the bond markets is another question.
Without serious things to say on growth and security, any replacement for Starmer is a pointless placeholder before the Reform tsunami arrives. But we must also talk about personality – as Rayner rightly says. All the contenders are better communicators than Starmer. His speech, produced after an intense – and tense – struggle in Downing Street, was pretty good. The Prime Minister was unbuttoned, passionate and fluent. But his policy proposals were vague and reheated. It was both good Keir and also, sadly, very Keir.
When we discuss the dangers of a contest, we shouldn’t weakly forget the possible opportunities – for a much more vivid national communicator, and for a more coherent, deeply felt political direction. The party must believe it can do better.
Rayner has fire. She speaks the same language as voters. When Farage was looking for a metaphor to describe his party’s achievement this month, he went straight for Becher’s Brook. True, it took a Financial Times journalist to point out that, to win the Grand National, you must get over this most intimidating of obstacles twice, but it’s the kind of thing his voters instantly get. How many of the cabinet speak like that?
Well, Wes Streeting can, for one. He has been by far the most fluent and engaging communicator, and I can imagine him grabbing the attention of voters in a way that would make the political landscape feel instantly different. He is on the edge of jumping. I hope he does.
He will be viciously attacked as the living embodiment of the Mandelson clique, another metropolitan Blairite, the man who wields the dagger. But he’s strong-minded. The Burnham camp will move very fast, but Labour needs a discussion between Manchesterism and Streeting’s radical plan to reshape Westminster. These are uniquely difficult times coming: would it be impossible for the two to work together? A Streeting-Burnham union would be the kind of political coup that could change the weather.
All the possible contenders (to whom I would add Al Carns) have significant black marks against their names to contend with, from previous closeness to Mandelson to troubles with HMRC. All would swiftly encounter the vicious online right-wing attack machine, undergoing an agonising and humiliating journey Starmer could now, I’m sure, describe as vividly as Dante’s Virgil.
This is one hell of an ask of any human being: political ambition is more toxic than fentanyl. And yet the ingredient that perhaps matters most, that sparkling elixir Farage learned from Trump, is optimism. With all the Celtic nations now led by nationalists, with the blizzard of anti-British propaganda coming from the US and Russia, a leadership that stands up for a decent, progressive nation and believes in a better future will score highly. The sour miserabilism that has been drifting out of Whitehall, the pursed-lipped, finger-wagging mustn’t, oughtn’t, shouldn’t, is also what people were voting against up and down the country. Labour can choose rancour, division and to make itself despised by ordinary Britain – or it can opt for a politics of good cheer, optimism and decency. The day will come when this country has had enough of racism and conspiracy mania.
But there’s that fundamental question: can Starmer beat Farage in two years’ time? He thinks so. Very few others agree.
Streeting has the radical edge and the audacity for a proper fight. I’d be fascinated by the prospect of Burnham if he was available. Both together would be best, but whoever comes next has to deliver visible change, run towards the big arguments and emit a sense of constant energy and urgency we haven’t seen before.
Can the most senior people in Labour be swift, ruthless and work as one? Probably not. But if they could, the rewards for the country would be enormous.
[Further reading: Brexit is back – and it is consuming Keir Starmer]
Content from our partners
Related
This article appears in the 13 May 2026 issue of the New Statesman, Never-Ending Chaos
Join the debate
Subscribe here to commentThe danger of a Farage government is such a massive threat to the UK that only a united and concerted defence of democracy and social democratic values will suffice.
Such a defence can not be fully realised as long as the social democratic parties are fighting each other for votes.
The moment is too perilous to play politics against each other. Under a 5/6 way spit with FPTP Farage could get a massive majority on 30% of the vote.
Labour supports FPTP; all the other social democratic parties support PR.
Labour needs to abandon FPTP and join the other parties in a formal electoral pact to keep Farage out.
The majority of voters still support social democratic parties (see Poll of Polls).
If seats matched votes in Parliament, Labour would not need to court the right wing vote and could work in coalition to bring about the necessary changes.
It would be the basest treachery for Labour to keep pushing for an overall majority and, most probably, hand the keys to No 10 to Farage
Well said. I agree.
Starmer’s garb is injured righteousness. It has been washed too often. Streeting is far too up his self-promoting pharma funded AI management nirvana. Venture Capital will sensibly go elsewhere. Sadly, what is needed is someone with the courage to set in motion a post-war WWII siege economy, with high purchase tax on luxuries and tariffs to limit spending currency drains, and to make space for necessary common investment. Will-o-the wisp indiscriminate ‘growth’ is not the answer.
I guess by challenging Starmer, Streeting is being swift and ruthless – not just against Starmer but also Burnham.
Would the Greens count as a “social democratic party” ?
If not, we are talking about Labour and the Lib Dems, I assume?
If the Greens are included, we are tarring Labour with the woke lunacies of the Green party – which boasts that its policies are not focus-grouped, they come directly from votes of its activists….. who are often complete loonies.
Such an interesting read. It’s so frustrating watching the government and not understanding why they haven’t even tried to tell a compelling story about change