Cromwell & Starmer
A Return to Rigid Authoritarianism?
From the crumbling monuments of empire to the contemporary hum of Westminster, it’s tempting to wonder what Oliver Cromwell would make of Keir Starmer. Both men, shaped by very different historical moments, embody a certain puritanical streak in British politics: a steely pragmatism mixed with a moral severity that’s as cold as the stone walls of parliament itself. One brought the king’s head to the block; the other has quietly seized control of a party that once dared to imagine itself as the voice of the people. And yet, despite their contrasting legacies, Cromwell and Starmer share more than just a passing resemblance in their rigid, authoritarian approaches to power, both of which threaten to destabilize the very systems they seek to control.
Cromwell’s Quest for Control: From Revolution to Authoritarianism
Cromwell, the Lord Protector of the Commonwealth, was an iconoclast, a soldier-turned-politician who rejected the monarchy only to wield authority with iron discipline. His Puritanism was more than just religious zeal; it was a mode of governance, a demand for austerity and order in a world he saw as falling into chaos. Cromwell’s rule was marked by his attempts to impose strict moral governance and a purging of opposition that was meant to restore order, but instead alienated large swathes of the population. His Puritan austerity, which was designed to morally cleanse the nation, ultimately sowed the seeds of revolt against him. What began as a revolutionary force turned into a rigid system that collapsed under the weight of its own authoritarianism.
Starmer’s Labour: A Party Under Tight Command
Keir Starmer, though worlds away from Cromwell’s England, has taken a similar path in reshaping Labour with an iron grip. Since taking over the Labour Party, Starmer has conducted a systematic purge—not of kings, but of dissenters. His leadership is not a restoration of the party’s former strength but a hostile takeover, one that prioritizes internal discipline over political vision. The party has been gouged out, its once-vibrant spectrum of voices silenced, one by one. Radicals, centrists, even the mildly disobedient—anyone who so much as disagreed with Starmer’s tightly managed vision of Labour was cast out or had the whip removed.
The purge within Labour is clear: left-wingers and Corbynites were the first to go, but Starmer’s intolerance of dissent extends far beyond radical factions. Any MP or figure in the party who dares challenge the orthodoxy is swiftly dealt with through deselections, disciplinary actions, or the slow suffocation of political careers. Labour, once a broad church, now feels more like a private club under Starmer’s command. Just as Cromwell’s Puritan austerity alienated the people, Starmer’s rigid managerialism is jarring with the public’s expectations of Labour, a party traditionally seen as representing the working class, progressivism, and an alternative vision for Britain
Like Cromwell’s Puritan rule, Starmer’s authoritarianism is driven by a desire for order and control at the expense of democracy, risking the very instability it seeks to avoid.
A Hollow Labour: The Politics of Discipline Without Vision
The lack of vision in Starmer’s leadership is increasingly becoming a political liability. Labour voters, who once looked to the party for bold answers to pressing issues—economic inequality, public services, climate change—now find a hollow, bureaucratic core. Starmer’s managerial approach, focused on internal control rather than external policy vision, leaves voters feeling disconnected from Labour’s traditional values. Starmer’s leadership fails to address the critical issues facing the UK, such as crumbling public services, the escalating cost of living crisis, soaring energy bills, and environmental degradations. The public’s frustrations over these issues are growing, but Starmer’s priggish, stuffy leadership shows little in the way of solutions. Instead, much like Cromwell’s rigid governance, Starmer’s relentless focus on political discipline alienates both party members and the electorate.
Disillusionment in the Polls: A Warning Sign
This disillusionment is evident in the latest polls, which underscore growing public dissatisfaction with Starmer’s leadership and Labour’s performance. According to a September 2024 Ipsos poll, 46% of respondents viewed Starmer unfavourably, matching his previous lowest rating. Additionally, only 25% of Britons believed he was performing well as Prime Minister, a decrease from 36% in July, with 55% expressing the view that the country was heading in the wrong direction (Ipsos Poll, 2024).
The trend continued into October, with a More in Common survey conducted between October 5 and 7 showing Starmer’s approval rating had fallen to -33, a significant drop from +11 immediately after the election. To put this in perspective, his approval now stands even lower than that of former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who sits at -32. This decline highlights an alarming shift in public sentiment, as more Britons lose confidence in Starmer’s ability to lead and address the pressing issues of the day (More in Common Survey, 2024).
What is most troubling, though, is where this growing political frustration might lead. The danger isn’t just that disillusioned voters will abandon Labour, but that they will turn to parties that offer simpler, more extreme answers to complex problems. Reform UK, which is already feeding on a diet of Trump-style politics—populism, division, and nationalism—is gaining traction by presenting itself as a clean break from the political establishment. But the public may not stop at Reform. Disillusioned voters may turn to something even more extreme, an ideology that goes beyond division to actively undermine democratic institutions. These movements often thrive on scapegoating marginalized communities, offering blame instead of solutions, and promoting authoritarianism under the guise of security. They prey on fear, resentment, and the promise of regressive nationalism. Unlike Reform, which is dangerous enough in its promise of division and regression, these more extreme ideologies pose an even greater risk: the erosion of democratic values and the rise of exclusionary, authoritarian rule.
The Conservative Party is already drifting further right, with either Kemi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick poised to take the leadership mantle, pulling the party toward more populist, nationalist rhetoric. As the traditional political parties fail to address the crises people face, there is a real danger that the political landscape will shift toward these more radical, authoritarian alternatives, threatening to undermine the very foundations of British democracy.
The Threat of a Modern Political Revolution
What began with the mad court of King Boris Johnson may well end with the Puritan Parliament of Keir Starmer. Cromwell came to power on the heels of a revolution, wielding control through a forceful purge of dissent. In an ironic twist, Starmer’s rigid grip on Labour might herald a political revolution of a different kind — one where disillusioned voters sweep away the traditional parties of power. Labour and the Conservatives could be cast aside, replaced by parties like Reform UK, offering populism, division, and easy answers to complex questions.
As we stand on the brink of this potential upheaval, a darker fear lurks beneath the surface. In their disillusionment with Labour’s lack of vision and the Conservatives’ failures, the public may not only turn to Reform—which is dangerous enough in its promises of division and regression—but to something far more dangerous. Something more Trumpian, an opportunistic force that thrives on division, resentment, and fear, offering simplistic solutions with authoritarian motives.
If history has taught us anything, it’s that authoritarianism, whether dressed as Cromwellian puritanism or modern-day pragmatism, often sows division instead of unity. As voters, we must protect our democratic values and push for accountable leadership that genuinely represents the people’s needs. The revolution is coming. The only question is whether we shape it into something transformative, or whether we allow it to burn our world down. The choice, as always, remains ours.
References:
Rachman, G., 2024. Keir Starmer as Cromwell: the Roundhead in the English Civil War. Financial Times. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/e993dd4b-f2c0-43fc-bc41-788f7aec01f2 [Accessed 22 October 2024].
Stewart, G., 2024. Cavalier with the facts. The Critic. Available at: https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/august-september-2024/cavalier-with-the-facts/ [Accessed 22 October 2024].
Ipsos Poll, 2024. Half of Britons Disappointed in Labour Government So Far. Available at: https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/half-britons-disappointed-labour-government-so-far [Accessed 22 October 2024].
Ipsos Poll, 2024. Public Satisfaction with Starmer Falls Post-July Election. Available at: https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/public-satisfaction-starmer-falls [Accessed 22 October 2024].