The number that spells trouble for Keir Starmer

Keir Starmer is on course for a huge majority – but some pollsters think Labour could win 450 of the 650 Commons seats with less than 40 per cent of the vote. John Curtice, the doyen of election experts, has a warning for Labour: “You must not assume that your dominance of the House of Commons is a reflection of the position in the wider public domain.”

Some Starmer allies are nervous that on 5 July, his left-wing critics will be able to point out that Jeremy Corbyn won a higher vote share (40 per cent) than Starmer when he wiped out Theresa May’s majority in 2017. If that happens, the left will doubtless claim he could have won more votes with a bolder programme. (Never mind that Corbyn’s implausible wish list was trashed at the 2019 election.)

A win is a win under the existing rules and the quirks of our antiquated first-past-the-post system. Tony Blair won a majority of 66 on just 35 per cent of the vote in 2005. Margaret Thatcher benefited from the left-of-centre vote being divided between Labour and the Liberal-SDP Alliance. (Today, the tables are turned, and Labour is aided by a rare split on the right between the Tories and Reform UK).

Voters knew what they were going to get with Thatcher and Blair. Like them or loathe them, both projected a clear vision. It is absent from the Tory and Labour campaigns at this election. The Tories talk about tax cuts and little else. Labour has expended a lot of energy in telling us what it will not do, to answer the Tory tax attack.

True, Labour’s “change” mantra is brutally effective amid a perception that nothing works in “broken Britain” after 14 years of Tory rule. That’s before Partygate, Boris Johnson’s lies and Liz Truss’s mini-Budget.

In a deliberate echo of Blair’s words on New Labour, Starmer told today’s Daily Mail: “We have campaigned as changed Labour and we will govern as changed Labour.” But Starmer has failed to answer the “change to what?” question because he doesn’t want to frighten the former Tory voters Labour needs. Some Labour figures fear the safety-first campaign is storing up huge problems as a Starmer government’s lack of a proper mandate could become an albatross around its neck.

Jonathan Powell, who was Blair’s Downing Street chief of staff, is not worried about Labour falling short of the 40 per cent threshold. But he believes that while Blair’s “few detailed policies” at the 1997 election provided a clear sense of vision, Starmer’s long list of small policies does not. Labour is going to win a “negative mandate” as voters reject the Tories, he told a debate staged by the IPPR think tank and iNHouse Communications in Westminster last night. What Labour needs, he argued, is a “positive mandate” it can point to “when things get difficult”. (They will.)

One Starmer ally insisted to me that “a Commons majority equals a mandate”. But other Labour insiders privately worry the party’s ultra-cautious campaign will leave a Starmer government without a “narrative” or “story”. The vague election mantra about “change” and “growth” will have to be turned into hard policies – without the growing economy and money that the Blair government enjoyed.

We can hardly blame Labour for enjoying the Tories’ self-inflicted wounds on D-Day and the betting scandal which, along with a never-ending list of opinion polls, have dominated this campaign. As a result, Labour has had less scrutiny than it deserves – but it won’t mind, even though it has missed opportunities to pass the vision test. If the polls were closer, perhaps Starmer would be bolder. But his strategy is working, so why change it? “We have to win first”, is the refrain from team Starmer.

Labour could have decided to “sell” its manifesto as a radical offering by highlighting plans to renationalise rail, create a state-owned energy firm and significantly enhance workers’ rights. Yet it has barely highlighted these policies so far, preferring the safe ground of its limited “first steps” on the NHS and schools. Again, don’t frighten the horses.

The lack of voter buy-in to the Starmer project will matter after the election. A lack of enthusiasm for Labour is palpable on the doorstep, Labour candidates tell me. They worry Starmer will not enjoy the honeymoon Blair had in 1997 or get the benefit of the doubt. The public will expect quick results and tangible improvements – and will probably be unsympathetic if Labour complains (accurately) about the worst economic inheritance in modern times. Reminding voters “We told you things would be difficult” at the election will not cut much ice.

Starmer should take Powell’s advice and make a big speech before next week’s election on what “change” will really mean. “It is not going to change the vote, but what you can do is change the mandate and define it,” Powell said.

There is still time – just.