Keir Starmer launched a bold political coup this week which could shape politics for decades to come. It wasn’t his rose garden speech, but rather the Number 10 briefing that he intends to use this autumn’s Labour conference to change the rules for the election of future party leaders.
His plan, as briefed, is to confine the vote for his successor just to Labour MPs, eliminating the wider party membership. It was further briefed that this change would apply only if the vacancy occurs when the party is in office, but since that is by far the most likely scenario for the succession to Starmer, the qualification probably doesn’t matter.
The effect of the change is to make it virtually impossible for an insurgent left-winger to seize the leadership, as Jeremy Corbyn did in 2015. Only a mainstream Labour MP, most probably a Cabinet minister like Wes Streeting or Rachel Reeves, stands a realistic chance of winning a majority of 2024’s largely centrist cohort of Labour MPs—even if the Labour government is unpopular at the time.
If this rule change is made, it could turn the tide on a generation of activist democracy in both major parties, which has made them vulnerable to a takeover from their extremes. Liz Truss was elected Tory leader and prime minister by Tory members two years ago, over the heads of Tory MPs who wanted Rishi Sunak, because she pledged massive tax cuts, whatever the cost. The next Tory leader may be sorely tempted to follow Starmer’s lead to protect themselves and their successors from activist populism as they seek to rebuild their party.
It is no coincidence that this leadership rule change was briefed in the same week that Starmer signalled in his Number 10 rose garden speech a highly cautious strategy for government. It was all doom and gloom, playing down expectations, particularly among radicals in his own party who would dearly like to see big new welfare and infrastructure spending initiatives in Labour’s first budget in October.
Taxes will have to rise in any event. And Rachel Reeves has already placated rebellious public sector workers by agreeing generous pay settlements for doctors, teachers and train drivers. She and Starmer are prepared to be unpopular on the left by resisting calls for equal generosity to welfare recipients, including pensioners hit by the government’s initial decision to means-test very tightly the existing winter fuel allowance.
Every Labour government since the party first took office in 1924 has ended up being ravaged from the left by claims of betrayal. These usually centre around state spending (too low) and foreign policy (too warlike and unprincipled), and result in a shift to the left when the party goes into opposition. But with the experience of Corbyn and Truss so recent, Starmer and his team want to eliminate any chance of a left-wing surge to seize the leadership while the party is still in office, especially given that this government’s scope for munificence at home is so constrained by its inheritance.
Re-run the last decade without activists choosing party leaders and it could all have been so different. No Corbyn. No Truss. Quite possibly, no Boris Johnson. And also possibly, no Brexit. The Starmer rule change is certainly a vote for a better yesterday—whatever it heralds for the future.
