‘All Labour prime ministers go gaga for the Queen,’ sighed Cherie Blair, played by Helen McCrory, in the 2006 film about the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. Her words were fictitious but the sentiment is real. From Ramsay MacDonald to Harold Wilson, left-wing prime ministers invariably end up as royalists. The current cabinet is no exception: former republicans such as Lisa Nandy have been charmed by Charles III. Even Keir Starmer – who once boasted on camera that he ‘often used to propose the abolition of the monarchy’ – is said to have a warm relationship with the King.
Yet geniality is only one reason why Labour loves the monarchy. The King has been a helpful sovereign to Labour ministers. He hugged Volodymyr Zelensky at Sandringham, toured new homes with Starmer in Cornwall and even appeared to endorse Ed Miliband’s energy summit. Senior Tories compare these gestures with unhelpful royal headlines from their time in office. ‘We all know he’s a leftie,’ grumbles one former cabinet minister.
As Starmer’s team wrestles with the rest of the public sector, the royal family is productive, popular and electorally advantageous. Household staff exhibit a wage restraint that Treasury bean counters can only envy. As one cynical minister notes: ‘The royals are one of the few services in this country that works properly.’ A year ago, Sue Gray warned that Thames Water, universities and councils going bust were three major risks facing a new government. Pay negotiations, prisons and NHS funding completed her six-point ‘shit list’. Twelve months on, Gray is gone and most of these problems seem, if anything, to be getting only worse.
Two fears haunt staff in No. 10. The first is that Labour does not fix public services by 2029. The second is that it does, only to be thrashed at the ballot box anyway. To this end, the government’s ‘spad school’ recently had a shake-up to ensure ministers get credit for its initiatives. Aides want to ensure that each announcement contains, as Ernest Bevin might have said, a ‘bloody Labour rosette on top of it’.
There is a frustration among some MPs at ministers’ inability to properly wield the powers of the state to their advantage. ‘We were given a massive mandate,’ says one. ‘Let’s start acting like it.’ They cite George Osborne as an unlikely lodestar, noting how in 2015 the Tory chancellor cut opposition party funding by 20 per cent.
Another new MP suggests a boundary review, arguing that seats with equal numbers of constituents would help Labour’s chances of victory in 2029. Pat McFadden’s ‘New Media Unit’ is working to sell Starmer’s messages to the public while Gray’s restriction on the hiring of new spads is being relaxed. But much of Starmer’s party believe he can go much further in channelling Hartley Shawcross’s cry: ‘We are the masters now.’
For bruised Labour MPs, there is much to cheer in what Rayner is doing with her wider portfolio
While the King is clearly an asset to the Prime Minister, the same cannot be said of the wider Whitehall machine. As the one-year anniversary of Labour’s general election victory approaches, officials still admit confusion over Starmer’s much-vaunted ‘mission government’. Given the government’s fiscal constraints, Starmer needs to be able to make creative use of the tools available to him.
One minister who appears to have grasped that is Starmer’s own deputy. ‘Rayner-mania’ swept Westminster this week, after a ‘secret memo’ was leaked to the Daily Telegraph. In it, Angela Rayner suggested to Rachel Reeves a series of revenue–raising schemes including soaking the rich and clamping down on migrants. Audacious it may have been, but Rayner’s memo demonstrated both her instincts and her ability to leverage circumstance to her advantage.
For bruised Labour MPs, there is much to cheer in what Rayner is doing with her wider portfolio. As minister for housing, communities and local government, she has ample scope to further the party’s aims in office. She has restricted ‘right to buy’ and boosted social housing, cancelled swathes of council elections and now has the English Devolution Bill to reshape local democracy in the way she wishes. She also has her upcoming Elections Bill, which is expected to include reducing the voting age to 16 and moves to ease voter registration.
Then there is her Employment Rights Bill. Critics jibe that its purpose is, in part, to boost union membership. They cite the bill’s plans for new digital rights which allow campaigners to access non-union workforces. Yet, as one aide puts it: ‘That is exactly what a Labour government should be doing.’ For Rayner, Labour is not merely a party, but a movement. Its interests should be championed at every opportunity. In this ambition she is cheered on by a close court of aides and allies, drawn from the union family.
Rayner’s power base, naturally, has its rival baronies. Her letter to the Chancellor was leaked in the context of the ongoing spending review. The Treasury plans to squeeze the Deputy PM’s department budget, with her housebuilding targets bearing the brunt. In the 1950s, it was Rab Butler’s funding that enabled Harold Macmillan to build 300,000 homes a year. Seven decades on, Reeves can make or break Rayner’s goal of building 1.5 million houses by the end of this parliament.
Questions of succession are a delicate matter for monarchs and ministers alike. Rayner might insist that she ‘never’ wants to run for Labour leader, but many in her party still regard her as the most likely next PM. The soft left, with which Rayner -identifies, is finding its voice, inspired by party divisions on welfare cuts. As one aide puts it, there are ‘many trade union MPs who, if the ball fell from the back of the scrum, would no doubt be gently nudged by their former bosses to do the right thing’.
If an unexpected vacancy should arise in No. 10, the Red Queen is ready to succeed the floundering knight.
Comments