British Labour Party’s ‘Starmtroopers’ mount rebellion against their leader

Mr Keir Starmer’s landslide win in the British general election last July delivered to the House of Commons what was supposed to be a hand-picked army of loyalists moulded in his image, a cadre that earned the moniker “Starmtroopers”.

As the British Prime Minister’s first anniversary in power approaches next week, the troops have mutinied, and some now have him and his chancellor in their sights.

Backbench Labour MPs on June 26 forced the government into a humiliating U-turn on its flagship welfare reform policy, cancelling some £3 billion (S$5.3 billion) of planned disability benefit cuts, which had enraged the left-leaning party’s ranks.

Downing Street had little choice but surrender: Without concessions, Mr Starmer faced the prospect of a parliamentary defeat on July 1 that would have been extraordinary for a government with a 165-seat majority, calling his premiership into question.

The move follows U-turns on his previous opposition to a national inquiry into child sexual abuse gangs and on a controversial decision to remove cold weather payments from pensioners.

He has also signalled willingness to raise benefits for families with children, a Labour demand he has previously resisted.

One left-wing MP joked on June 27 that “Keir always caves” could become the British equivalent of the US meme that President Donald Trump “always chickens out”.

The series of damaging climbdowns have left Mr Starmer’s political authority weakened, his judgment under scrutiny and the positions of those around him in jeopardy.

They also reflect increasing pressure on Labour from Mr Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party, which YouGov projected this week would win the most seats in the Commons if an election were held today – despite winning only five in 2024. 

“Labour thought they had a few years to make difficult decisions and then maybe reduce taxes closer to the end of parliament, but Reform’s success has made that tricky for them,” Professor Steven Fielding, emeritus professor of politics at the University of Nottingham, said in an interview.

“Reform can now attack them from left and right. Labour clearly thought they had the political space to do this, but it was a miscalculation, and they clearly haven’t,” he said, referring to the benefit cuts.

Speaking to broadcasters on June 27, Mr Starmer said the adjustments were “the right thing to do”, giving the package of welfare cuts “the right balance”.

The policy changes will have fiscal implications for Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves, however, while also placing her in political peril. Her first problem is the extra £4.5 billion she will need to find to fill the gap left by the reversals on disability benefits and winter fuel.

Moreover, the U-turns suggest she is unable to get serious spending cuts past Labour MPs, leaving tax rises at the autumn budget increasingly inevitable and further hurting the chancellor’s bet on economic growth coming to the rescue, according to Professor Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. 

Electoral pledges not to raise income tax, value added tax and national insurance for workers, coupled with the unpopular £26 billion increase in payroll taxes paid by employers that she rolled out at the last budget further tie her hands on what she is able to do next.

For the first time, Ms Reeves’ position is in serious danger, according to Labour MPs and government aides who spoke on condition of anonymity discussing internal party matters. The chancellor has sunk a lot of her personal political capital into making spending cuts to maintain fiscal stability, only to have them blocked by Labour MPs. 

A poll for the LabourList website found 40 per cent of Labour members want Ms Reeves ousted. Several MPs told Bloomberg that Mr Starmer should replace her with someone willing to change the government’s self-imposed fiscal rules that limit borrowing.

Many on the left of the party want a new chancellor to impose a one-time wealth tax.

“The issue of how the government designs a credible autumn budget will be in the news most weeks from now until it happens,” said Mr Sam Hill at Lloyds Bank. “The unpalatability of measures needed to meet the fiscal rules pressurises the government into questioning its commitment to the rules in the current format.”

MPs are also targeting Mr Starmer’s chief of staff, Mr Morgan McSweeney. Several said the premier’s most senior aide was responsible for pushing the government to the right on crime and immigration, as well as – alongside Ms Reeves – putting too much focus on fiscal prudence over the more traditional Labour priority of public services.

One MP said Mr Starmer should replace Mr McSweeney and Ms Reeves, or at least strip away some of their decision-making powers. Another said both had seen their authority eroded by the U-turns, and that they believed Mr Starmer now aimed to take a left-wing direction more palatable to the party.

The bad blood between Mr Starmer’s top team and the wider party flows both ways. Backbench criticisms of the premier include that he is often out of the country focusing on foreign affairs, a charge to which even some Starmer supporters are sympathetic.

MPs complain he rarely meets them to hear their concerns, does not seem to have an idea of what he wants to achieve domestically, and is not governing enough like a Labour premier. 

Allies of the premier expressed frustration that so many MPs are behaving like their Conservative predecessors by badmouthing the government to the media. There was particular anger at an anonymous Labour MP who suggested to the Times newspaper that Downing Street needed “regime change”.

One Starmer supporter warned that those agitating for Ms Reeves and Mr McSweeney to be fired, are effectively threatening to bring down the Prime Minister. Another attributed some of the complaints to ego, saying some backbenchers had decided to cause problems for the government because with such a large intake, career progression to the ministerial ranks was unlikely. 

But senior Labour backbencher Meg Hillier suggested the root of the disgruntlement was the government’s failure to communicate with the rank-and-file.

“There’s huge talent, experience and knowledge in Parliament, and I think it’s important it’s better listened to,” Ms Hillier, who chairs the Treasury Select Committee and had helped spearhead this week’s rebellion, told BBC radio on June 27. “That message has landed.”

In an interview with the Observer newspaper on June 27, an unusually emotional Mr Starmer conceded he had made a number of major mistakes since taking office. He accepted he had “squeezed the hope out” of the country with his gloomy rhetoric about the problems he inherited on taking office, said he had “deep regret” over a speech he gave on immigration that was criticised as populist, and said he had made “wrong” decisions on Downing Street appointments.

The interview divided his own team: Some felt it showed honesty and a more human side, others worried it projected weakness.

Mr Starmer will hope his U-turns are seen by the public as refreshing and proof that he is a politician who knows when he has made a mistake. The risk is that they – and the ranks of Starmtroopers seated behind him – just see him as weak. BLOOMERG