







If the pre-covid era already seems like years ago, the Labour leadership contest might as well have launched in a different millennium.





Empires rose and unravelled, newborn babes grew old and grey-bearded, a killer pandemic swept the globe and the foundations of neoliberalism itself collapsed into dust in the time it took for this interminable competition to deliver a result anyone could have predicted from day one.





Keir Starmer’s victory was resounding, driven by a simple pitch: a watered-down version of the McDonnell policy programme, but delivered by an electable haircut with a knighthood instead of a kindly jam grandad.





There are good reasons for the left to take an extremely sceptical attitude towards Starmer’s leadership. Though Sir Keir clearly isn’t a bloodthirsty partisan of the hard-right, his coalition of support includes figures who are - and that support will come with strings attached. The seasoned faction-fighters of Progress and Labour First played a significant role in the mortal wounding of Corbynism, and they won’t hesitate to deploy the same media-courting shithousery against Starmer if he doesn’t expunge all traces of democratic socialism from the party. Open Selections would ensure deliberate wrecking carries career-ending consequences: politely asking MPs to behave is unlikely to cut it.





Likewise, the new leader’s claim to a monopoly on ‘electability’ doesn’t quite seem watertight. Whilst it’s certainly possible to imagine him besting Johnson at the ballot-box, it’s difficult to find examples of cautious technocrats sweeping to victory in the current political landscape. A close look at who is actually winning and losing elections now, rather than in the long-vanished formative years of Gen X broadsheet columnists, would suggest a sharp-suited establishmentarian is exactly the type of candidate a reactionary pseudo-populist like Boris Johnson would wish to run against.





Above all, it’s the mode of leadership Starmer represents that should concern us. In a strange way, his victory mirrors Johnson’s general election win. With Boris pledging to ‘Get Brexit Done’ and Keir to ‘end factionalism’, both were carried to office on the promise of making the messy and unpleasant and necessary business of political conflict go away. Starmer promises a return to technocratic managerial competence, which isn’t necessarily a problem in itself - parties need competent technocrats - but indicates the return of the MP as the primary political actor and Parliament as the sole terrain upon which that action takes place, relegating the membership to a supporting role rather than the driver of policy and strategy. Radical change, however, can’t happen without a mass-movement that can exert leverage over the state - through strikes, direct action and street-by-street organising, or the credible threat of them. Fighting only within the halls of power means fighting where capital has an overwhelming advantage.





Is it time, then, for socialists to leave the Labour Party? No one’s support for any political project should be unconditional; the moment it is, you’ve given your permission to be ignored. But talk of walking out is hugely premature.





Ironically, the Labour right’s irrepressible pugnacity may provide opportunities to rebuild: in Spain, the Socialist Party’s centrist leader Pedro Sanchez was ultimately forced to seek support from his party's left, partly because the itchy trigger-fingers to his right deemed him insufficiently willing to cooperate with the conservative Partido Popular and launched a coup. Starmer too could find himself reliant on the left if unreconstructed Blairists in the PLP are tempted to overplay their hand and try to destabilise him.





That might, or might not, happen. But regardless: consider the nature of the work ahead of us in the wake of December’s election defeat. Owing to the strength of our analysis and our programmatic response to the civilisational crises we face, the left’s electoral popularity leapt far ahead of its actual organisational strength over the last five years. Union density is catastrophically thin, we're some way off building a comprehensive alternative media, and the level of class struggle (as measured in days lost to strike action) is at an historic low. Our reach has exceeded our grasp.





Our task now is class recomposition: forging strong links between working-class people in our communities and helping them understand our interests can only be advanced through collective struggle. We must organise and rebuild institutional strength - workplace by workplace, street by street - so that when our moment comes again, we have the power to deliver on our promises. It will be the work of years, we will need all the help we can get, and Labour is still a useful institution for meeting, engaging, organising and campaigning with other socialists. We should avoid putting all our eggs in the basket of electoralism, but offer critical support to the new leadership when necessary to defend policies we agree with.





History isn’t ultimately shaped by leaders, but by the endlessly churning conflict between those who own and those who serve. Change is built from the bottom-up: we shouldn't expect anything from Keir Starmer, but we don't need anything from him either.