Since Keir Starmer replaced Jeremy Corbyn in 2020 as leader of the Labour Party democracy has been the least of his concerns. More like Stalinist authoritarianism, all those who are seen as an opponent or threat within the party are either suspended, thrown out or publicly stitched up. It has now become another establishment tool with no intention of threatening the status quo.
As new CCTV footage reveals Labour MP for Runcorn and Helsby, Mike Amesbury, punching a man in the street, it could be argued that this is a classic metaphor for Starmer’s leadership. Anyone who says something that the Starmer junta disapprove of, then WHACK!
He can’t remain an MP.
— James Foster (@JamesEFoster) October 27, 2024
Appalling. pic.twitter.com/Csbi5SDmAY
Explaining Starmer’s Anti Democracy Leadership
Keir Starmer, leader of the British Labour Party since 2020, came to prominence as a moderate leader who promised to bring integrity and accountability back to British politics following the polarising years of Brexit. Starmer positioned himself as a unifying figure who would rebuild public trust, strengthening democratic values within both the Labour Party and the broader political landscape. Yet, despite these promises, Starmer’s handling of democratic principles and intra-party democracy has garnered substantial criticism. His approach, marked by a centralisation of power, an apparent dismissal of grassroots voices, and shifting positions on key issues, has led to widespread discontent from both within his party and the wider public. A closer look at his tenure reveals contradictions and challenges that call into question his commitment to the democratic values he initially pledged to uphold.
One of the central criticisms of Starmer’s handling of democracy stems from his treatment of Labour’s internal democratic processes. When he campaigned for leadership, Starmer presented himself as a leader who would respect Labour’s members and embrace the party’s grassroots, promoting open dialogue and inclusivity. His campaign featured pledges that resonated with Labour’s rank-and-file, including commitments to protect member-driven policy-making, empower local party structures, and respect the principles enshrined in the party’s constitution. However, Starmer’s subsequent actions have often appeared at odds with these promises. His leadership has seen a noticeable centralisation of power, with the party’s top echelons exerting tight control over decision-making and messaging. This has been particularly evident in the handling of candidate selections for parliamentary seats, where the national executive has frequently intervened to prevent local members from having meaningful input. These interventions, while ostensibly aimed at ensuring “electable” candidates, have created a sense of alienation and disenfranchisement among Labour’s membership, many of whom feel their voices are being marginalised in favour of a more centralised, top-down approach.
Another contentious issue has been Starmer’s approach to party discipline, particularly his handling of dissenting voices and factional disagreements within Labour. While discipline is essential for effective leadership, Starmer’s handling of dissent has raised questions about his tolerance for pluralism and democratic debate within the party. Notably, the suspension of former leader Jeremy Corbyn in 2020 over comments regarding anti-Semitism allegations in Labour, and the subsequent barring of Corbyn from standing as a Labour candidate in the 2024 general election, sent shockwaves through the party. Starmer justified these decisions as necessary steps to confront anti-Semitism and restore Labour’s image, yet critics argue that the actions appeared heavy-handed and politically motivated. This crackdown on Corbyn and his supporters has been perceived by some as an attempt to suppress the left wing of the party, limiting ideological diversity and stifling legitimate debate. Such actions risk creating an atmosphere of intolerance, where members are wary of expressing dissenting views for fear of disciplinary measures. This has fuelled concerns that Starmer’s leadership is less committed to democratic pluralism within the party than his initial promises suggested.
The controversy surrounding the Labour Party’s National Executive Committee (NEC) is another example of how Starmer’s approach has raised democratic concerns. Under his leadership, the NEC has become increasingly involved in internal matters, often taking decisive action against members and affiliates who hold positions that diverge from the leadership’s vision. In some cases, this has involved suspensions or expulsions, leading to claims that the NEC has effectively become an instrument of centralised control. This has sparked a debate over the role of the NEC and its relationship with the grassroots, with some members viewing it as an organ that should support, rather than undermine, internal democracy. By using the NEC to enforce conformity, Starmer’s leadership risks alienating large sections of Labour’s membership base, many of whom feel that their democratic rights within the party are being eroded. Critics argue that this undermines the very principles of accountability and transparency that Starmer pledged to uphold, creating an environment where the party’s direction is determined by a select few rather than through a broader, democratic process.
Starmer’s handling of policy pledges has also drawn criticism from those who feel that his shifting positions undermine trust in the Labour Party’s commitment to democratic accountability. During his leadership campaign, Starmer made a series of pledges that sought to balance progressive ideals with a pragmatic approach to governance. These included commitments to common ownership of public utilities, scrapping tuition fees, and investing in social housing—policies that appealed to Labour’s traditional base while signalling a shift towards the centre-left. However, as his leadership has progressed, Starmer has moved away from many of these pledges, arguing that changing circumstances and economic realities necessitate a different approach. While policy evolution is natural for any political leader, Starmer’s significant departures from his campaign pledges have led to accusations of dishonesty and betrayal. Critics argue that by abandoning key promises, Starmer has not only alienated sections of Labour’s base but has also damaged the party’s democratic integrity by failing to honour the commitments on which he was elected. This perceived lack of accountability risks creating a disconnect between the leadership and the membership, raising questions about the party’s direction and purpose under Starmer’s stewardship.
Furthermore, Starmer’s relationship with the British public and his approach to public consultation have been scrutinised for lacking transparency and genuine engagement. While he has spoken at length about rebuilding public trust in politics, his interactions with the electorate have sometimes appeared superficial and overly managed. This is particularly evident in his handling of major issues such as Brexit, where his stance has shifted considerably over time. Initially a staunch advocate for a second referendum, Starmer later pivoted to supporting Brexit implementation, arguing that it was necessary to “move on” and focus on other issues. While this position is understandable given the public’s fatigue with the Brexit debate, some see it as emblematic of a leadership style that prioritises political expediency over principle. This has raised concerns that Starmer’s approach to public opinion is reactive rather than proactive, with decisions being driven by electoral strategy rather than genuine engagement with the views and aspirations of the British public. By failing to articulate a clear and consistent vision, Starmer risks alienating voters who seek authenticity and principled leadership in an era of political disillusionment.
In addition to these domestic issues, Starmer’s approach to democracy within the broader political landscape has also been questioned. His response to government actions that have been widely criticised as undemocratic, such as restrictions on protest rights and the introduction of voter ID laws, has been seen by some as lacking in urgency and conviction. While he has expressed opposition to these measures, critics argue that his response has often been cautious, with limited public outcry or mobilization from Labour. This has led to accusations that Starmer is not fully committed to defending democratic principles, especially when doing so might risk alienating moderate or conservative-leaning voters. Such criticisms underscore a broader concern that Starmer’s leadership is primarily focused on electoral pragmatism at the expense of a robust defence of democratic rights and freedoms. By adopting a cautious approach to contentious issues, Starmer risks appearing ambivalent on matters of democratic significance, raising questions about his commitment to standing up for fundamental rights in the face of governmental overreach.
Moreover, Starmer’s handling of the Scottish independence question has further exposed potential weaknesses in his democratic approach. Scotland’s political landscape has undergone significant changes since the 2014 independence referendum, with calls for a second vote gaining traction amid the UK’s exit from the EU. Starmer has consistently opposed a second referendum, arguing that the focus should be on addressing Scotland’s social and economic challenges rather than reopening the independence debate. While this stance aligns with Labour’s unionist tradition, it risks alienating Scottish voters who feel that their democratic right to self-determination is being dismissed. Critics argue that by opposing a second referendum, Starmer is not only disregarding the views of a significant portion of the Scottish electorate but is also missing an opportunity to engage in meaningful dialogue about the future of the UK. This has led to accusations that Starmer’s leadership is insufficiently responsive to the democratic aspirations of Scotland, reinforcing the perception that his approach is often more concerned with political expediency than with democratic principles.
Another aspect of Starmer’s leadership that has raised concerns about his commitment to democratic values is his approach to media relations and public scrutiny. While Starmer has largely avoided the confrontational style of some of his predecessors, his media strategy has been criticised for lacking transparency and accessibility. For instance, his office has been accused of tightly controlling media appearances and limiting opportunities for journalists to ask challenging questions. This approach, while understandable from a public relations standpoint, risks creating a perception that Starmer is not fully open to scrutiny, potentially undermining his commitment to accountability. By restricting media access, Starmer risks alienating not only journalists but also the public, who expect their leaders to be transparent and accountable. In an era where trust in political institutions is already low, a more open approach to media relations could help to rebuild confidence in Labour’s commitment to democratic values. However, Starmer’s cautious media strategy suggests a preference for managing the message rather than engaging in open, sometimes uncomfortable, dialogue with the press and the public.
In assessing Starmer’s handling of democracy, it is also important to consider his approach to coalition-building and cross-party cooperation. At a time when British politics is increasingly fragmented, a commitment to democratic values would arguably involve greater efforts to build bridges across political divides. However, Starmer’s approach has often appeared cautious and selective, with limited engagement with parties outside Labour. This is particularly evident in his handling of issues such as electoral reform, where he has shown little appetite for meaningful discussions about proportional representation (PR) despite growing support for the idea within his party and among the broader public. By failing to engage in a constructive dialogue on PR, Starmer risks missing an opportunity to strengthen democratic representation in the UK. Moreover, his reluctance to work more closely with other progressive parties, such as the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party, has led to criticisms that his leadership was overly focused on achieving a Labour majority rather than exploring more collaborative approaches to governance. This insular approach suggests a reluctance to embrace a more inclusive, coalition-based vision of democracy, raising questions about the Labour government’s role in fostering a more representative political system under Starmer’s leadership. He appears to be just another establishment stooge doing his master’s bidding.
