Share this post:
Can Labour only win elections if it is led by right-wingers and the the Left are never allowed to take control?
That’s the thesis of Simon Wren-Lewis’s latest thoughtful-but-flawed Mainly Macro piece, which can be disproved by pointing out that Keir Starmer’s Labour, that has ruthlessly excised the Left, won’t win any more elections while the left-wingers he chopped out have started their own party – that undoubtedly will.
The Left, Wren-Lewis suggests, provides vision, energy, and moral clarity, but must remain subordinate to the Right, which supposedly makes Labour “electable.”
It’s an argument rooted in fatalism — and it’s wrong.
Wren-Lewis rightly condemns the Labour Right’s sabotage of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, even acknowledging that this sabotage played a role in Boris Johnson’s election and the thousands of deaths from his herd immunity policy during the Covid pandemic.
Astonishingly, he still concludes that the Left must remain subordinate to the very faction that enabled those disasters.
Let’s be clear: if Labour’s Right would rather see Johnson in Downing Street than their own democratically elected leader, they are not “moderates.” They are wreckers. They are traitors.
And they have blood on their hands.
The Right doesn’t tolerate the Left — it fears it
Wren-Lewis openly admits what many have long suspected: the Labour Right simply will not allow the Left to lead, even if it means losing power and condemning the country to Conservative rule.
In 2019, that’s exactly what happened.
The Labour Right refused to campaign for the party it nominally belonged to.
Some even welcomed defeat if it meant getting rid of Corbyn.
And what followed? Brexit under Johnson. Herd immunity. Almost a quarter of a million people dead. A further dismantling of the NHS. Police crackdowns on protest. The complete marginalisation of Palestinian rights in public discourse.
Labour, under Corbyn, would not have pursued herd immunity. It would not have turned a blind eye to genocide. It would not have gutted protest rights or mimicked Reform UK talking points on migrants in small boats.
The Labour Right’s decision to sabotage its own party was not just petty — it was catastrophic.
Yet Wren-Lewis, despite acknowledging this, still argues the Left must defer to those same people.
Starmer’s Labour: a hollow victory, already falling apart
What are we left with? The answer is mortifying: a Labour government that barely resembles an opposition to Tory rule, let alone a progressive alternative.
Economically, Keir Starmer has embraced fiscal conservatism, ruled out taxing the wealthy, and shelved nationalisation entirely.
Socially, his government uses language indistinguishable from Nigel Farage’s — scapegoating migrants, staying silent on Israel’s war crimes, and defending anti-protest legislation.
In every meaningful way, Starmer’s Labour is a pallid extension of the politics it claimed to replace.
This isn’t bold leadership. It’s cowardice dressed up as competence.
And we – the public – know it.
The electorate is moving — but it’s moving left
Wren-Lewis argues that the Left should accept its place on the margins because it has “nowhere else to go.”
But that’s just not true.
A new left-wing party has emerged with around half a million members already.
That makes it one of the largest political parties in Western Europe — a movement that dwarfs Reform UK, who were boasting about breaking 80,000 after the general election.
People are leaving Labour – not because they’re naïve but because they’re paying attention.
The Left is no longer willing to prop up a leadership that panders to the Daily Mail – or, worse, The Sun – and shuns its own base.
This isn’t protest — it’s preparation.
Who’s really delusional?
Wren-Lewis accuses the Left of delusion for thinking it can win.
But who’s really clinging to fantasy — those building a mass movement from the ground up, or those insisting Labour must endlessly triangulate rightward to stay “electable,” even as it bleeds energy, vision, and trust?
The Labour Right failed to inspire voters in 2010 and 2015.
They only eked out a majority in 2024 because the Tories collapsed under their own corruption — not because Starmer offered anything worth voting for.
Meanwhile, Corbyn’s Labour in 2017, despite relentless media attacks and internal sabotage, gained millions of votes and came within touching distance of power. That wasn’t failure. It was momentum.
The real delusion is imagining that Labour can discard its conscience, mimic its enemies, and still command the respect of the country.
The Left isn’t your conscience. It’s your replacement.
Wren-Lewis says the Left is needed to provide Labour with a moral compass.
But the Left doesn’t exist to give cover to a morally bankrupt leadership.
It exists to build a better world — with or without the Labour Party.
Starmer’s government is already squandering the chance it was given.
It is more concerned with neutralising dissent than delivering change.
But the people it has tried to silence are not going away.
They are organising.
They are growing.
And they are not waiting for permission any more.
Labour had a chance to be a vehicle for transformation.
Instead, it chose purges over pluralism, authoritarianism over accountability.
The new Left movement rising outside Labour is not a distraction — it’s the future.
Wren-Lewis is right that Labour needs the Left. But he’s wrong to think the Left needs Labour.
Share this post:
Labour’s moral collapse: why excluding the Left means the Right will lose
Share this post:
Can Labour only win elections if it is led by right-wingers and the the Left are never allowed to take control?
That’s the thesis of Simon Wren-Lewis’s latest thoughtful-but-flawed Mainly Macro piece, which can be disproved by pointing out that Keir Starmer’s Labour, that has ruthlessly excised the Left, won’t win any more elections while the left-wingers he chopped out have started their own party – that undoubtedly will.
The Left, Wren-Lewis suggests, provides vision, energy, and moral clarity, but must remain subordinate to the Right, which supposedly makes Labour “electable.”
It’s an argument rooted in fatalism — and it’s wrong.
Wren-Lewis rightly condemns the Labour Right’s sabotage of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, even acknowledging that this sabotage played a role in Boris Johnson’s election and the thousands of deaths from his herd immunity policy during the Covid pandemic.
Astonishingly, he still concludes that the Left must remain subordinate to the very faction that enabled those disasters.
Let’s be clear: if Labour’s Right would rather see Johnson in Downing Street than their own democratically elected leader, they are not “moderates.” They are wreckers. They are traitors.
And they have blood on their hands.
The Right doesn’t tolerate the Left — it fears it
Wren-Lewis openly admits what many have long suspected: the Labour Right simply will not allow the Left to lead, even if it means losing power and condemning the country to Conservative rule.
In 2019, that’s exactly what happened.
The Labour Right refused to campaign for the party it nominally belonged to.
Some even welcomed defeat if it meant getting rid of Corbyn.
And what followed? Brexit under Johnson. Herd immunity. Almost a quarter of a million people dead. A further dismantling of the NHS. Police crackdowns on protest. The complete marginalisation of Palestinian rights in public discourse.
Labour, under Corbyn, would not have pursued herd immunity. It would not have turned a blind eye to genocide. It would not have gutted protest rights or mimicked Reform UK talking points on migrants in small boats.
The Labour Right’s decision to sabotage its own party was not just petty — it was catastrophic.
Yet Wren-Lewis, despite acknowledging this, still argues the Left must defer to those same people.
Starmer’s Labour: a hollow victory, already falling apart
What are we left with? The answer is mortifying: a Labour government that barely resembles an opposition to Tory rule, let alone a progressive alternative.
Economically, Keir Starmer has embraced fiscal conservatism, ruled out taxing the wealthy, and shelved nationalisation entirely.
Socially, his government uses language indistinguishable from Nigel Farage’s — scapegoating migrants, staying silent on Israel’s war crimes, and defending anti-protest legislation.
In every meaningful way, Starmer’s Labour is a pallid extension of the politics it claimed to replace.
This isn’t bold leadership. It’s cowardice dressed up as competence.
And we – the public – know it.
The electorate is moving — but it’s moving left
Wren-Lewis argues that the Left should accept its place on the margins because it has “nowhere else to go.”
But that’s just not true.
A new left-wing party has emerged with around half a million members already.
That makes it one of the largest political parties in Western Europe — a movement that dwarfs Reform UK, who were boasting about breaking 80,000 after the general election.
People are leaving Labour – not because they’re naïve but because they’re paying attention.
The Left is no longer willing to prop up a leadership that panders to the Daily Mail – or, worse, The Sun – and shuns its own base.
This isn’t protest — it’s preparation.
Who’s really delusional?
Wren-Lewis accuses the Left of delusion for thinking it can win.
But who’s really clinging to fantasy — those building a mass movement from the ground up, or those insisting Labour must endlessly triangulate rightward to stay “electable,” even as it bleeds energy, vision, and trust?
The Labour Right failed to inspire voters in 2010 and 2015.
They only eked out a majority in 2024 because the Tories collapsed under their own corruption — not because Starmer offered anything worth voting for.
Meanwhile, Corbyn’s Labour in 2017, despite relentless media attacks and internal sabotage, gained millions of votes and came within touching distance of power. That wasn’t failure. It was momentum.
The real delusion is imagining that Labour can discard its conscience, mimic its enemies, and still command the respect of the country.
The Left isn’t your conscience. It’s your replacement.
Wren-Lewis says the Left is needed to provide Labour with a moral compass.
But the Left doesn’t exist to give cover to a morally bankrupt leadership.
It exists to build a better world — with or without the Labour Party.
Starmer’s government is already squandering the chance it was given.
It is more concerned with neutralising dissent than delivering change.
But the people it has tried to silence are not going away.
They are organising.
They are growing.
And they are not waiting for permission any more.
Labour had a chance to be a vehicle for transformation.
Instead, it chose purges over pluralism, authoritarianism over accountability.
The new Left movement rising outside Labour is not a distraction — it’s the future.
Wren-Lewis is right that Labour needs the Left. But he’s wrong to think the Left needs Labour.
Share this post:
you might also like
Workplace battleground: Labour and Tories at war over employment
A&E fears fall on deaf ears
‘Abolition of the Bedroom Tax’ Bill is launched in Parliament