What’s really behind Labour’s civil war: John Rentoul answers your questions

In a recent Q&A with Independent readers, chief political commentator John Rentoul argues that Labour’s internal turmoil under Keir Starmer reflects a deeper crisis of discipline and direction that could hand the political initiative to Nigel Farage

Sir Keir Starmer leads a party that looks increasingly unable to govern itself.

Despite a Commons majority almost as large as Tony Blair’s and a government still in its infancy, Labour appears locked in near-constant internal conflict – something not seen on this scale since the 1970s.

Too many colleagues seem more interested in fighting each other than in governing – or in taking on Nigel Farage.

The immediate flashpoint is the Andy Burnham row, and the decision of 50 Labour MPs to sign a letter demanding that Starmer reverse his move to block Burnham’s return to the Commons. The protest was never going to succeed, but it revealed a deeper malaise.

That malaise can be traced back to Starmer’s leadership bid following the 2019 general election. To win, he had to support Corbynism, which made it far harder later to argue the case for not supporting it. The result was paralysis in opposition, poor preparation for government, and a cycle of rebellions and U-turns once in power.

Policy confusion has only sharpened the sense of drift, from welfare to migration and Brexit. Yet I do not think Starmer himself is the central problem. Unless Labour fixes the NHS, raises living standards and stops the boats, Nigel Farage will continue to benefit – whoever leads the party.

In a recent Q&A with Independent readers, I answered your questions on Labour’s internal chaos, Andy Burnham’s ambitions, policy reversals and Reform’s rise.

Here are some of them – and my answers:

Q: Is Labour now an unruly party, like a school in special measures?

Laertes

A: I rather like your school analogy. I think it applies in all organisations: good leaders are clear about what they are trying to do, always making the arguments for it, always visible, accountable and open.

There is a tension, though, between leading from the front and listening to the troops, and managing that is the real test of a good leader. I fear that Keir Starmer hasn’t managed it well. He is visible, although I think he gives too many interviews without a clear idea of what he wants to get across, and he has allowed his MPs to push him around with negative consequences for the public finances.

Q: Will Farage win big unless Labour replaces Starmer?

YetAnotherName

A: I do not think Keir Starmer is the problem. I think the government has to stop the boats, improve the NHS and hope living standards rise. Wes Streeting or Shabana Mahmood might be better communicators, but unless Labour fixes the nation’s problems Nigel Farage will win.

I have no idea how many seats Reform will win, or whether Farage can hold it together for another three years, but I think everything else is secondary.

Q: Should Starmer take responsibility if the SNP retain power and push for another referendum?

Imsethorus

A: No, and nor should he! It would have been better if he had not become so unpopular so quickly, but if separatism is going to be decided by the passing ups and downs of UK government opinion-poll ratings that would be very wrong.

However, I don’t believe that an SNP government will have a majority, and it certainly won’t have a majority of votes, not even with the Greens and Alba, and even if it did it would not be able to hold another referendum.

We had a referendum that was good for a generation, and since then the objective case for independence has become weaker. The SNP still hasn’t explained how it will meet the costs of independence or what the currency will be.

Q: Is Starmer’s leadership too shallow, creating a rift with Labour MPs?

JovianOlympus

A: I think a fundamental problem of the project to install Starmer as leader following the 2019 general election was the necessity of pretending to support Corbynism, which made it hard to argue the case for then not supporting it.

I admire Keir Starmer’s ruthlessness in winning the leadership as a soft Corbynite and former DPP, but he hasn’t explained the change since and this paralysis, as you call it, meant that he and his colleagues failed to prepare for government.

Q: How should Andy Burnham balance leadership ambitions with party unity?

TPJr

A: I agree Andy Burnham is in a tricky position, although he is making things worse by complaining about his treatment by the party. He should have known Keir Starmer wouldn’t let him be a candidate, and, having made the mistake of putting himself forward for it, he should have accepted the decision with good grace.

He is in a tricky position, too, because he should support the party (and its leader) vigorously, while setting out the sort of policies that will continue to persuade people that he would be a better leader. That is a difficult balancing act, and my view is that too many of his supporters look at superficial opinion polls that suggest voters are more “favourable” to him than to Starmer – but they overlook the forced-choice questions asked by Ipsos, which found that Starmer did better when people were forced to choose between either Starmer or Burnham and Nigel Farage.

Q: Should Labour be aiming for a female leader instead of Burnham?

Gluben

A: I like Angela Rayner and think she is a great politician. Unfortunately, she did not achieve much as a minister except push through the Employment Rights Bill, which loads costs on employers and which had to be made less damaging after she had gone.

Also, she is not popular with the wider public, which I think is class prejudice rather than sexism, but it is not obvious that she is the answer to Labour’s problems any more than Andy Burnham is – or Louise Haigh for that matter.

Q: Is the gap between Labour’s rhetoric and reality – including Brexit – politically damaging?

wolfie

A: Yes, Keir Starmer is addicted to over-emphasis and absolutism. I do not know how precisely to stop the boats, but I refuse to believe that it is not possible.

On Brexit: lots of Leave voters think that leaving the EU has been a failure, but they think that is because the politicians in charge of it were useless. The one thing they do not want, though, is to go through the whole cycle of negotiation again – and I don’t think the EU does either.

Q: When is a policy change listening, not a U-turn – as with winter fuel payments?

Trewent

A: Very good point! One person’s U-turn is another's “listening to the people”. Maybe the problem with the winter fuel payment was that Rachel Reeves said she needed to abolish it for all except the poorest because the country couldn’t afford it, and then said it could, although nothing had changed (in fact, the public finances had actually got worse). Then she found even more money for families with three or more children on benefits, and so on.

Q: Why is the right-wing press hostile to Ed Miliband – and would he be a good chancellor?

Anonymous

A: I don’t regard myself as the right-wing press but I disagree with Ed Miliband’s politics, and did so consistently when he was leader. I think his energy policy is misconceived. The aims are laudable but the costs are concealed.

I do not think he would be a good chancellor. He seems to think, along with Lucy Powell and Andy Burnham, that we should borrow and spend more. I think that would take the country further in the wrong direction.

These questions and answers were part of an ‘Ask Me Anything’ hosted by John Rentoul at 2pm on Friday 30 January. Some of the questions and answers have been edited for this article. You can read the full discussion in the comments section of the original article.

For more insight into UK politics, check out John’s weekly Commons Confidential newsletter. The email, exclusive to Independent Premium subscribers, takes you behind the curtain of Westminster. If this sounds like something you would be interested in, head here to find out more.