(C) OpenDemocracy This story was originally published by OpenDemocracy and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . Election: Why the left must unite behind Keir Starmer [1] [] Date: 2024-06 It is sometimes alleged that Keir Starmer has been ‘gifted’ Labour’s 20-point poll lead: by Tory infighting, the partygate scandal, and a cost-of-living crisis beyond the government’s control. He is winning over Conservative voters, goes the argument, by adopting ‘Tory-lite’ economic policies, and the whole project will crumble to dust on contact with economic reality. In fact, both the poll lead and Labour’s policy offer are the product of a consistent strategy, based on the acceptance of two facts that are unwelcome to the left. First, that there is no route to power for a progressive party in the UK without winning substantial numbers of working-class voters from a group pollsters describe as the ‘patriotic left’ – aka the Red Wall. Second, that growth strategies based on borrowing, taxing and spending are currently precluded by the mixture of high bond yields and high inflation, triggered by the Covid pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine war. When we launched Starmer’s leadership campaign in January 2020, we knew Labour would need to prioritise winning back the Red Wall through a policy mix combining economic radicalism and with mainstream positions on crime, migration and defence. Get our free Daily Email Get one whole story, direct to your inbox every weekday. Sign up now We did not know Covid would see UK debt levels hiked close to 100% of GDP; that the government’s borrowing costs would rise by 400%; that Liz Truss would push the private pension system close to collapse; or that Vladimir Putin would launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. So Labour’s ‘securonomics’ agenda has to be seen as a response to these new realities. It is an attempt to answer the question: how does a progressive government deliver growth and redistribution when the possibilities for higher taxes, spending and borrowing are constrained? The answer is, by creating the conditions for long-term private investment, in sectors whose growth can deliver rising real wages, while focusing public money on the revival of vital services. At the heart of securonomics is a win-win proposition: climate change means we need to invest massively in decarbonised energy, which over time will reduce our reliance on oil and gas and create new, higher-skilled jobs. Greening the economy, if done right, can boost growth, create jobs and enhance national security, while reducing the upward pressure on people’s energy bills. It might fail, for reasons I will explore below. But what you’re seeing in the polls, and in the faltering attack lines of the right-wing press, is a result of the rising belief that it could work. There is no panic coming from the City – indeed, among economists there is broad acceptance that securonomics could bring the investment conditions long-term capital craves. And there is no convincing alternative coming from the Tories, stuck as they are with a mixture of small-state economics and the war on woke. So what Starmer has achieved is not an accident. It is based on an unflinching realism about the electorate, and a skilful redesign of social democracy for the age of high bond yields and Russian aggression. Starmer’s compromises have created legitimate frustrations among parts of Labour’s traditional base, among university-educated voters in big cities, trade unions, some Muslim voters (over Gaza) and ardent Remainers. Logically, once a Labour government is achieved, these groups will push for faster and stronger action on their own agendas –decarbonisation, public sector pay, the recognition of Palestine etc. But Labour is not playing for a five-year stint in power. The stakes are much higher. Given the rightward shift of conservatism, and the possible takeover of the Tory party by Nigel Farage after the election – we need to reduce the chances of an openly racist and misogynist far-right government to zero – and for a generation. If we succeed, the effect will be similar to what Clement Attlee achieved in 1945. A new political consensus, this time framed around a rapid move to net zero, using state-led investment; for active and positive engagement with the EU; for a revived NHS, using tech innovation to boost productivity; and a new consensus on migration, based on a clear calibration of its costs and benefits to individual communities. That, plus increased investment in defence, science and advanced manufacturing, is the consensus Labour should try to create. And until the Tory party accepts it, we should find the democratic means to shut them out of power for good. That will require both strategy and discipline. Even now, after the D-Day fiasco, the Tories are scoring 23% in a poll of polls, with Farage’s Reform party on 12%. That combined 35% vote, for a mixture of nostalgia, the small state and xenophobic nationalism, represents the same strategic danger here that it does in the US, France and Italy. All it would take to put hard-right figures like Farage, former home secretary Suella Braverman and Miriam Cates into power is for Labour to fail, and for its voter coalition to fragment. The potential sources of difficulty for Labour in office are clear. Take renewables: Labour plans to attract billions of pounds worth of private investment into solar, wind and nuclear by delivering regulatory certainty. That means overriding planning objections, streamlining the approval process and mandating the National Grid to connect new projects fast. But if planning reform gets mired in the courts, and the grid’s connection pipeline remains blocked, the investment could flow elsewhere. So the opportunity for the left lies at the moment when market forces and incentives alone don’t work. In the case of energy, that could mean nationalisation of the Grid, or the judicious use of windfall taxes. As the renewables industry finds itself in competition for skills with a revived manufacturing sector, it could involve giving the unions a role in the training and deployment of the workforce, in exchange for comprehensive recognition agreements. Because Labour shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves’ mantra in her discussions with business – “stability and certainty for investors” – is not something you achieve through stasis: you achieve it by confronting the obstacles and establishing a clear, predictable pattern of responses to potential failure. In making the left-wing case for Starmer’s project, I present one final exhibit: Labour’s response to the Ukraine crisis. Our party’s long-term commitment to disarmament reaches way beyond Corbynism: as late as February 2021 Labour’s shadow defence secretary was promising – alongside solid support for NATO and the nuclear deterrent – to “lead efforts to secure strategic arms limitation and multilateral disarmament”. But when Russia attacked Ukraine, the Labour front bench understood this was an existential moment: Putin was trying to demonstrate proof of concept that “might is right”. Labour mirrored Tory support for Ukraine and urged the government to go further, faster. It ordered 11 left-wing MPs to withdraw their names from a Stop the War letter blaming NATO for the war, or lose the whip. And it will go into this general election committed to rearming the UK in the face of totalitarian aggression. In short, Starmer has proved a more consistent anti-fascist than any of those on the left who opposed arms and military aid to Ukraine. There are plenty of things that could go wrong under the coming Labour government. There is an old, Blairite faction inside Labour that still believes in privatisation. The two biggest industrial unions – the GMB and Unite – want the ban on new oil and gas contracts to be conditional on guarantees for the workers whose jobs are at risk. If Labour’s growth strategy works, market forces alone will trigger sectoral wage inflation, which the Bank of England does not have the power to stop. And if Putin responds to failure in Ukraine by escalating his nuclear threats, Labour will need to put the argument for full-scale rearmament. But these are better problems to have than the problem of a Farage or Braverman-led Tory government, pulling Britain out of the European Convention, rigging all future elections, dragging refugees off to Rwanda, cancelling the right to protest and fawning over Trump. So the left-wing case for Starmer amounts to this: in a world where democracy is in peril, and where conservatism is merging with the far right, he stands a chance of making the UK a place of resistance and a model for the rest of Europe. Ultimately, if the polls suggesting younger people are deserting the Tories are right, Starmer will be the bridge to a future where progressive voters form a natural majority. When that time comes, I am certain that the left will reshape itself towards more ambitious ends. But for the questions of the present, Starmer’s project is the answer. Paul Mason is a journalist, writer and film-maker. His latest book is How To Stop Fascism openDemocracy is committed to publishing a wide range of opinions. Read our article from last week from a journalist and campaigner who feels the left deserves better than Keir Starmer [END] --- [1] Url: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/keir-starmer-left-wing-case-paul-mason-labour-party-general-election/ Published and (C) by OpenDemocracy Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons CC BY-ND 4.0. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/opendemocracy/