David Gauke: Labour will go left and lose those people whose lukewarm vote was for something else

David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the 2019 general election.

The Labour government is moving leftwards.

Whether Keir Starmer survives as Prime Minister or not, a shift in direction is inevitable.

It has been evident ever since the retreat on welfare cuts that the Parliamentary Labour Party was to the left of its frontbench and – given a fight between the two – the PLP was capable of prevailing.  Abolition of the two child benefit gap was to follow, as was a second autumn budget with hefty tax increases, necessary in part to pay for higher welfare spending.

Since then, of course, Starmer’s position has weakened.  When a Prime Minister is on the brink, the expedient approach is to focus on party management, and Starmer is nothing if not expedient.  He is often dismissed as being remarkably unpolitical, which is true, but he has also demonstrated repeatedly a very political willingness to be ruthless and flexible.

These characteristics were to the fore in the departure of Morgan McSweeney as his chief of staff.  McSweeney was central to Labour’s election campaign and to the operation of the government.  In both roles, he pursued a political strategy – adopted tentatively by Starmer – which involved resisting a drift towards the left.  Even with McSweeney, the Government has drifted leftwards, without him the current will be irresistible for Starmer.

This all assumes that Starmer stays.  If he does not, a Labour leadership race will focus on a membership who thinks that the problem is that the Government is too right-wing.  There will be calls for bigger government, wealth taxes, a more generous welfare state, and nationalisations.  Whereas recent Conservative leadership elections involved members asking themselves who was best placed to beat Nigel Farage, Labour members will worry more about losing votes to Zack Polanski.  It would be a brave and unsuccessful Labour leadership candidate who will set forward a manifesto focused on making the country more economically dynamic, competitive, and business-friendly.

All of this can be contrasted with how Labour fought the last election and, as a consequence, the mandate they received.  It is true to say that Labour’s campaign was deliberately unmemorable and risk-free in the manner, to use Roy Jenkins’ phrase, of ‘a man carrying a priceless Ming vase across a highly polished floor’.  It is also true to say that the media put Labour under little scrutiny, reflecting the public’s sentiment that it was time for a change but with a weary incuriosity as to what that change may involve.  Nonetheless, Labour went to great lengths to demonstrate that it was not going to be a government of the left.

There were promises not to increase the rates of income tax, VAT, and national insurance.

There was also a promise to keep the corporation tax rate at 25 per cent, part of an energetic effort to keep business opinion onside.  Fiscal responsibility was at the heart of Rachel Reeves’ pitch to the electorate.  There were some totemic tax increases on the wealthy (VAT on school fees, reforms on the tax treatment of non-doms and private equity bosses) but if higher spending on public services was going to be necessary, it would come from higher levels of growth.  How this was going to happen was kept vague (it turned out that this was not because they had a secret plan but that they did not know themselves) but the impression was left that the answer would be more about pragmatism and competence than the implementation of socialism.

Party management also demonstrated that Labour had moved on from its recent history.

Jeremy Corbyn had been thrown out of the party he had only recently led and was forced to run as an independent.  The early days of the campaign were full of stories of how Team Starmer had determinedly excluded Corbynistas from standing as candidates, giving the impression that the future PLP would be made up of centrist loyalists.  The splits and factions of the Tory years would be put behind us.  Starmer might not be charismatic but he had command of his Parliamentary colleagues.  At last, we would have a grown-up in charge that could worry about the concerns of the country, not his party.

It worked.

Even though Labour lost votes and a handful of seats to the Greens and the Gaza independents, it won votes from former Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, higher earners and older and middle-aged voters that had been wary of the party in 2019.  It also succeeded in making the General Election a referendum on the Tories, which helped encourage tactical voting that made the anti-Tory vote remarkably efficient.  Many centrists voted against the Conservatives rather than against Labour.  Tory-minded voters – disillusioned with their traditional party but who could not bring themselves to vote Labour or Liberal Democrat – were sufficiently reassured to stay at home.  Starmer had discovered that there were electoral advantages in stirring up apathy.

This reality is likely to be forgotten in the next few weeks.

The internal Labour debate is all about the disappointment within the electorate about Labour’s lack of boldness and radicalism and that if only that could be corrected the Government would be more popular.  There are certainly left-wing voters who feel betrayed by the realities of a Labour government, but these are generally the same left-wing voters who feel constantly betrayed by reality.  If Starmer goes, how will they feel in a couple of years about Rayner, Miliband or Burnham or whoever they get as his successor? Betrayed, I would wager.  Only one Labour Prime Minister has ever won a second workable majority, and he did not do so relying heavily on flaky left-wing voters.

What Labour should worry about more are those voters who had been reassured that Labour would govern sensibly enough, solve problems, tread lightly on their lives and unite the country.  Business opinion – open to Labour in 2024 and encouraged by the focus on economic growth – has moved decisively away from them.  There is no sign of the Labour Party, in its current frame of mind, is making much of an effort to win that support back.

For those of us that want a country that is well-placed to succeed in a highly uncertain world, there is nothing to celebrate here.  Hard-headed decisions are needed to control public spending, reform public services, and improve competitiveness.  The Labour left is incapable of delivering on any of those fronts.  If Labour fails dismally, the country might react by taking a punt on the populist right, even more woefully prepared for the rigours of government.

The better option for the country is that the Conservative Party fills the breach; that it offers an attractive alternative to those reluctant 2024 Labour voters and Tory abstainers that had been reassured that the left had been repelled and that Starmer could be trusted.  Business opinion – dismayed at Boris Johnson’s hostility over the costs of Brexit and Liz Truss’s fiscal irresponsibility – is open to being wooed by the Conservatives once again and should be the first priority.

For the rest of this Parliament, Labour is going to govern as a different party to the one that was elected in 2024.  Part of their 2024 coalition of support will be lost as a consequence.  It will be that part of its coalition which is more focused on economic growth, more supportive of the private sector, and more sceptical of socialism.  In other words, a move to the left will mean that more centrist voters will be up for grabs.  It is a huge opportunity that the Conservative Party cannot afford to miss.

Whether Keir Starmer survives as Prime Minister or not, a shift in direction is inevitable.  It has been evident ever since the retreat on welfare cuts that the Parliamentary Labour Party was to the left of its frontbench and – given a fight between the two – the PLP was capable of prevailing.  Abolition of the two child benefit gap was to follow, as was a second autumn budget with hefty tax increases, necessary in part to pay for higher welfare spending.

Since then, of course, Starmer’s position has weakened.  When a Prime Minister is on the brink, the expedient approach is to focus on party management, and Starmer is nothing if not expedient.  He is often dismissed as being remarkably unpolitical, which is true, but he has also demonstrated repeatedly a very political willingness to be ruthless and flexible.

These characteristics were to the fore in the departure of Morgan McSweeney as his chief of staff.  McSweeney was central to Labour’s election campaign and to the operation of the government.  In both roles, he pursued a political strategy – adopted tentatively by Starmer – which involved resisting a drift towards the left.  Even with McSweeney, the Government has drifted leftwards, without him the current will be irresistible for Starmer.

This all assumes that Starmer stays.

If he does not, a Labour leadership race will focus on a membership who thinks that the problem is that the Government is too right-wing.  There will be calls for bigger government, wealth taxes, a more generous welfare state, and nationalisations.  Whereas recent Conservative leadership elections involved members asking themselves who was best placed to beat Nigel Farage, Labour members will worry more about losing votes to Zack Polanski.  It would be a brave and unsuccessful Labour leadership candidate who will set forward a manifesto focused on making the country more economically dynamic, competitive, and business-friendly.

All of this can be contrasted with how Labour fought the last election and, as a consequence, the mandate they received.  It is true to say that Labour’s campaign was deliberately unmemorable and risk-free in the manner, to use Roy Jenkins’ phrase, of ‘a man carrying a priceless Ming vase across a highly polished floor’.  It is also true to say that the media put Labour under little scrutiny, reflecting the public’s sentiment that it was time for a change but with a weary incuriosity as to what that change may involve.  Nonetheless, Labour went to great lengths to demonstrate that it was not going to be a government of the left.

There were promises not to increase the rates of income tax, VAT, and national insurance.  There was also a promise to keep the corporation tax rate at 25%, part of an energetic effort to keep business opinion onside.  Fiscal responsibility was at the heart of Rachel Reeves’ pitch to the electorate.  There were some totemic tax increases on the wealthy (VAT on school fees, reforms on the tax treatment of non-doms and private equity bosses) but if higher spending on public services was going to be necessary, it would come from higher levels of growth.  How this was going to happen was kept vague (it turned out that this was not because they had a secret plan but that they did not know themselves) but the impression was left that the answer would be more about pragmatism and competence than the implementation of socialism.

Party management also demonstrated that Labour had moved on from its recent history.  Jeremy Corbyn had been thrown out of the party he had only recently led and was forced to run as an independent.  The early days of the campaign were full of stories of how Team Starmer had determinedly excluded Corbynistas from standing as candidates, giving the impression that the future PLP would be made up of centrist loyalists.  The splits and factions of the Tory years would be put behind us.  Starmer might not be charismatic but he had command of his Parliamentary colleagues.  At last, we would have a grown-up in charge that could worry about the concerns of the country, not his party.

It worked.  Even though Labour lost votes and a handful of seats to the Greens and the Gaza independents, it won votes from former Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, higher earners and older and middle-aged voters that had been wary of the party in 2019.  It also succeeded in making the General Election a referendum on the Tories, which helped encourage tactical voting that made the anti-Tory vote remarkably efficient.  Many centrists voted against the Conservatives rather than against Labour.  Tory-minded voters – disillusioned with their traditional party but who could not bring themselves to vote Labour or Liberal Democrat – were sufficiently reassured to stay at home.  Starmer had discovered that there were electoral advantages in stirring up apathy.

This reality is likely to be forgotten in the next few weeks.  The internal Labour debate is all about the disappointment within the electorate about Labour’s lack of boldness and radicalism and that if only that could be corrected the Government would be more popular.  There are certainly left-wing voters who feel betrayed by the realities of a Labour government, but these are generally the same left-wing voters who feel constantly betrayed by reality.  If Starmer goes, how will they feel in a couple of years about Rayner, Miliband or Burnham or whoever they get as his successor? Betrayed, I would wager.  Only one Labour Prime Minister has ever won a second workable majority, and he did not do so relying heavily on flaky left-wing voters.

What Labour should worry about more are those voters who had been reassured that Labour would govern sensibly enough, solve problems, tread lightly on their lives and unite the country.  Business opinion – open to Labour in 2024 and encouraged by the focus on economic growth – has moved decisively away from them.  There is no sign of the Labour Party, in its current frame of mind, is making much of an effort to win that support back.

For those of us that want a country that is well-placed to succeed in a highly uncertain world, there is nothing to celebrate here.  Hard-headed decisions are needed to control public spending, reform public services, and improve competitiveness.  The Labour left is incapable of delivering on any of those fronts.  If Labour fails dismally, the country might react by taking a punt on the populist right, even more woefully prepared for the rigours of government.

The better option for the country is that the Conservative Party fills the breach; that it offers an attractive alternative to those reluctant 2024 Labour voters and Tory abstainers that had been reassured that the left had been repelled and that Starmer could be trusted.  Business opinion – dismayed at Boris Johnson’s hostility over the costs of Brexit and Liz Truss’s fiscal irresponsibility – is open to being wooed by the Conservatives once again and should be the first priority.

For the rest of this Parliament, Labour is going to govern as a different party to the one that was elected in 2024.  Part of their 2024 coalition of support will be lost as a consequence.  It will be that part of its coalition which is more focused on economic growth, more supportive of the private sector, and more sceptical of socialism.  In other words, a move to the left will mean that more centrist voters will be up for grabs.

It is a huge opportunity that the Conservative Party cannot afford to miss.