By-election result is a complete rejection of Starmer’s empty politics

Dr Keith Darlington

Just 18 months ago, Labour won the Gorton and Denton seat with a majority of over 50%. But in the early hours of Friday morning the result of a by-election in this rock solid Labour seat, saw the Greens win with a thumping majority and Labour finishing 3rd.

This could prove to be a turning point in British politics because this shows that we are truly in a multi-party democracy now. More importantly, there has been much talk about the Tories facing an existential crisis being subsumed by Reform, but last night shows that Labour could also be facing an existential crisis being subsumed by the Greens in England.

This by-election is a remarkable result because Labour lost despite the support of a strong Labour machine, which included visits to the constituency by most Cabinet ministers and Labour MPs, including Starmer himself and the very-popular northern hero Andy Burnham. Even a series of cheap jibes directed mainly at their opponents the Greens didn’t sway the voters—Labour still lost, and lost badly. Their leader is largely to blame.

Sir Kier Starmer’s managerial, non-political approach to governance was destined to fail from the outset. In this article, I will explain why this strategy may have initially helped him gain power but is now failing miserably in office and will likely lead to his demise.
However, a new, more charismatic leader alone will not be sufficient. Labour is unlikely to win without a clear purpose and a set of ideas and articulate their beliefs. The UK faces significant challenges, and mere tinkering around the edges will not suffice. Voters understand this, but does Labour?

Selling the Starmer image

Before the 2024 general election, Starmer’s spin doctor, Morgan McSweeney, attempted to transform his weakness into a winning strategy by presenting him as a manager with no political ideology, but rather as a capable administrator. Indeed, after Labour won the General Election in July 2024, Starmer stated that Labour would govern “unburdened by doctrine.” They claimed that each issue would be addressed on a case-by-case basis, relying on evidence rather than ideology.

However, such a strategy was always likely to fail. It is inconceivable that even a neutral, non-political approach—like the one Starmer seemed to advocate—would succeed. Decisions made in government are going to be political; after all, politics is about making choices.

Furthermore, being in government requires managing multiple issues and that requires joining the dots. For instance, environmental policy is affected by treasury policy. This requires a cohesive plan with some vision of what the government wants the country to become. Something that has been completely absent. The capable administrator approach is already in tatters after the chaos of the last 18 months.

Starmer has struggled in office from the beginning

In opposition, Starmer quickly abandoned virtually all the pledges he made during his leadership campaign. A trend continued in government. Whenever a policy becomes controversial, a U-turn inevitably follows. The Starmer government has become known for its numerous U-turns—15 so far while in power. The U-turn on the delay of local elections was very costly to the taxpayer, among other reversals regarding the Winter Fuel Allowance, the abolition of ID cards, and so on.

This isn’t surprising because without strong beliefs, a coherent plan, and a clear purpose, politics can drift into aimlessness, much like a leaf blowing in the wind. His cozying up to Reform ideas by giving an “Island of Strangers” speech stunned many in the party, yet a few weeks later he apologised realising that the speech was damaging the Labour brand. This ineptitude has epitomised the Starmer government. Starmer claims his plan is to address the cost-of-living crisis, but any politician, regardless of their ideology, would aim to achieve the same goal. To achieve it will mean setting out in detail how it can be done. It was supposed to have been economic growth but that objective is in tatters following the November budget.

The PM has quickly gained a reputation as one of the most robotic Prime Ministers ever — lacking ideas, purpose, and a coherent plan. Even policies he seemed to champion before becoming leader, such as stronger ties with Europe, have been abandoned. This may have been a deliberate strategy to gain power, but it is insufficient to sustain him as Prime Minister.

The only positive thing being said about the Prime Minister these days, even among his dwindling group of supporters, is that he is a decent man. However, decency alone does not make him a good Prime Minister. Opinion polls indicate that he has become the most unpopular Prime Minister on record, primarily because he stands for so little.

During his 18 months in office, he has travelled more than any other Prime Minister to announce his acquisitions of trade deals with different countries. Yet, the impact of these deals on the UK economy is minimal compared to negotiating a post-Brexit agreement with the EU, such as joining the Customs Union or the Single Market. He has ruled out these options because they would be controversial and likely provoke backlash from opponents – such as Reform.

Being Prime Minister requires taking a stance on difficult issues, even if they are difficult and controversial. For instance, he hesitated to clearly state whether he believed Trump was breaking international law by invading Venezuela, despite being a former Director of Public Prosecutions. This pattern of evasion on tough issues contributes to voter dissatisfaction.

Given the many challenges facing the country—such as the economy, housing, and the state of our rivers — voters have the right to expect their Prime Minister to take decisive action on these important matters. They expect more than just a decent man; they need a leader who is willing to speak out and act.

Labour now has to compete for votes

The once-beloved high priest of Labour, Lord Peter Mandelson, famously stated that Labour voters would endure anything the party throws at them because they had nowhere else to go. However, that is no longer the case. The Green Party poses a significant threat to Labour, as they genuinely challenge Labour’s position and attract its voters. At the very least, the Greens are discussing issues that Labour, under Keir Starmer’s narrow political approach, is not willing to address. Starmer has dismissed the Greens as “nuts” and resorted to cheap insults, but this strategy has clearly backfired.

The Prime Minister published pleas in newspapers on the day of the by-election for voters in Gorton and Denton, to support Labour. This demonstrates a level of desperation rarely seen in leaders as he anxiously tries to hang on to his job. But he cannot halt the inevitable decline. The current leader represents a significant problem for Labour, contributing to the upheaval in British politics.

The beginning of the end for both main parties?

The fall in support for both main parties, as evidenced by the Caerphilly by-election a few months ago, indicates a political trend that would have been unimaginable just a few years ago. Yet, even before Thursday’s by-election, the evidence was pointing to a seismic change. For example, the combined vote in the general election for the two main parties was less than 58%. This last happened over a century ago. The traditional two-party system dominated by Labour and the Conservatives is unravelling. Support for both main parties seems to be in freefall. Party politics, dominated by these parties during the last century, has changed forever. Both parties are facing existential crisis: The Tories from Reform and Labour from the Greens in England, Plaid Cymru in Wales, and the SNP in Scotland.

Conclusions
Labour cannot continue with this leader at the helm. The Scottish Labour leader understands this and has called for Starmer’s removal; however, the Welsh Labour leader has not yet made the same call. She may need to reconsider her position as the Welsh Senedd elections approach, as it is hard to believe that voters’ perceptions of Starmer will change before then. At the very least, Welsh Labour should distance itself from UK Labour.

UK Labour is struggling and in need of new leadership quickly. However, simply bringing in a fresh, charismatic figure will not suffice. They require someone with innovative ideas, a strong sense of purpose, and, most importantly, a clear plan. However, that is not enough. The party also needs to understand that the country has changed: it is now a multi-party politics is probably the only way it will survive in the future. It must change its culture and find ways to connect with the voters by creating a genuine democracy.

Abolition of the First Past the Post voting system to a fairer proportional representation system would be a good start. If they fail to meet this challenge, they risk facing significant defeat and possible annihilation. Are they up for it?