(and all over the West)
How did the Labour win in Britain?
Labour’s victory in the U.K. has enthused leftists all over Europe. Will it lead to any significant change in domestic or international policy?
Keir Starmer, the new Labour premier, is a conservative masquerading as a progressive socialist. He is no different from all the centrist leaders who govern most of Europe, whether they began their career as libertarians, Christian Democrats, conservatives or socialists, greens, or even communists. The good news lies only in political renewal in a country — indeed a government — in disarray, led by a Party that has consecutively governed for almost 15 years. To say it has governed is misleading since today’s “governments are governed” by other powers rather than rule according to the citizens’ mandate.
Starmer has already made it clear that there will be no change on the international front. Of a return to the E.U., no way. He expressed support for Ukraine without mentioning the possibility of negotiations. He affirmed Israel’s right to self-defense without taking solid positions on genocide and Palestinian rights. Although Starmer professes to be an atheist, he attends synagogue with his wife, who comes from an observant Jewish family that divides its residence between London and Tel Aviv. Israel and the Americans can rest easily.
At most, one might expect a shift toward more active social policies and improvements in health care, which are now in dire straits. However, regardless of Starmer’s willingness to rearrange social policy, the government will face the “mission impossible” of reorganizing an old welfare system and finding the funding to revive it. Specifically, in these first months of government, the new PM promised to approve additional military spending for even more weapons in Ukraine and military interventions in support of Israel.
Urban Geography and Administration
It is worth noting that despite having a 64 percent parliamentary majority, Starmer received only 34 percent of the vote because of the bizarre electoral system that has remained the same for centuries. In addition, only 60 percent of eligible voters bothered to vote, while the rest didn’t care to rush to the polls. In essence, only one-fifth of citizens voted for a party that will hold nearly two-thirds of the representation in Parliament. Why should this situation not raise serious concerns about democracy? In this situation, Starmer is not interested in popular support. He can control the police, army, and media without anyone standing in his way except his party. The Tories received just 10 percent fewer votes than Labour but will hold only 18 percent of the seats in Parliament. Nigel Farage, the populist leader of Reform U.K., got 14 percent of the vote but will be represented by just 0.6 percent of the seats in Parliament. The Liberal Democrats, true to tradition, did slightly better, getting 12 percent of the vote and 10 percent of the seats. United Kindom Parliament does not represent the British people’s will.
Some might observe that constituencies in the United Kingdom are modest in size, thus creating a direct relationship between elected and voters regardless of party affiliation. The observation would have been relevant until decades ago, before the urban concentration and mass private and public mobility development. But today, many people live straddling multiple constituencies and have no direct relationship with the territory. The relationship between geography and politics has changed. Even with small constituencies, voters receive information from mass media also because local civic organizations have disappeared or become irrelevant.
Politics in the Ivory Tower
Even more than in other Western countries, British politics remains entrenched in an ivory tower increasingly out of reach of citizens. As a result, the people have already shown their frustration with street protests, shouting on the deaf ears of Parliament. As was easy to predict (and we anticipated), citizens almost immediately took to the streets. Parties and Parliament struggle to control the people in the U.K. and Western countries. Riots increase, and severe parliamentary debates are latent, where Parties pit against each other two coherent albeit alternative political visions. The bi-party system, a model for what we have called democracy, is now failing. In the U.K., within days of each other, there were violent anti-immigration riots and, soon after, more “anti-anti-immigration” and pro-Palestine anti-genocide rallies. But they led to nothing but the venting of superficial emotions.
“An exceptionally powerful government.”
Jake Benford of the prestigious Bertelsmann Stiftung (Foundation) hails the installation of “an exceptionally powerful center-left Labour government.” It is striking how some respected commentators (respected but biased if one can ever be respected when biased… that’s how it goes today…) appreciate such a pronounced alteration of people’s will, disregarding the problem of representation. On the other hand, while claiming to be a scholarly institution, the British author and the German foundation he works for represent a well-established power whose independence has been repeatedly questioned.
Benford praises the democratic system despite the reported data and the (consequent) riots and counter-manifestations that swept through the United Kingdom immediately after the election. Above all, appreciating an “exceptionally powerful” government (as long as it is of his political party) is striking. However, “an exceptionally powerful government” resembles a regime if it is supported by a parliamentary majority disproportionate to the votes cast. Even more so if this government is hetero guided by powers outside the institutions.
The Bertelsmann Foundation researcher notices this contradiction and admits, “Labour’s ideas have not captured the imagination of the electorate, and the result is largely a reflection of British voters’ anger at the Conservative Party.” How could it be otherwise when only one in five British citizens preferred Labour, whose platform they do not expect to differ from the Conservatives? Like other peoples, the Brits voted against the former establishment rather than for a new deal.
