Compromised to Life

illustration by Will Allen/Europinion

Phototropism: the process by which plants grow towards the sun, leaning closer toward their food source. An extraordinary adaptation mechanism intended to maximise survival. No, you’re not on some revision webpage designed for teenagers seeking biology qualifications; you remain on the epitome of opinionated political analysis. For phototropism occurs in politics too. Politicians and parties bend towards the light of popular opinion, an outright requirement for long-standing electoral prominence. Many a critical perspective has been spoken or authored about ideological swaying, as if remaining relevant to the wider electorate in a democratic system is some crime against civics. These perspectives, however, are misguided within the pragmatic, political reality. 

While a well-constructed and thoroughly enjoyable read, Andrés De Miguel’s Compromised to Death column for Europinion late last month fails to consider political phototropism. It is easy, yet unwise, to expect principle to underpin every action within government, as this almost always fails to eventuate. The savviest and, by extension, most successful politicians understand the art of compromise and how it can revive a dying party. The Labour Party has grown towards the light of electability over the past few decades, as all sensible political entities do, and it is unfair to criticise logic in an age in which it is so eerily lacking.

1979, ‘83, ‘87, and ‘92 marked four general elections for the Labour Party without success. Perpetually seated in opposition, the Parliamentary benches on the Speaker’s left-hand side had become eerily familiar and comfortable for Britain’s premier leftist Party. The main reason? The Party had failed to modernise and was perceived as out-of-touch with the contemporary political-economic landscape; backwards, overly reactionary. In reappropriating modernity to apply not just to the Conservatives but also to (New) Labour, the Party could again inspire public confidence - it could again win. Labour’s wise modernisers changed the Party to more accurately reflect the electorate's desires, making the organisation contemporary for the first time in over a decade. It came to represent values with which the masses could easily identify, culminating in Labour going from eternal opposition to the natural party of governance. 

This process inevitably involved a shift to the right, particularly economically; neoliberalism had been installed within the by-then market-conscious public, and policies such as the nationalisation of key industries simply could not be stomached by the electorate. The electors had shifted right, and thus, the Labour Party had to do so too, or risk falling off the political cliff into the abyss of unelectable irrelevance, likely to be replaced by a different organisation that understood how to adapt to the post-Thatcherite environment. 

Why am I recounting the tale of New Labour? Because political commentators are still failing to see the lessons political phototropism teaches us. Parties that wish to be in government, or those that want to maintain their status as such, must grow towards the light of public opinion. Politics is adapt-or-die, yet many believe the former to be a betrayal of values and the latter a moral undertaking. In truth, they have it the wrong way around: to be unwilling to change in the face of an electorate clamouring for something else betrays the democratic will for the sake of perceived ideological superiority; to be willing to change is to embrace the reasonable and sensible, allowing success in achieving something cut from the same cloth, as opposed to failing in achieving a personal utopian vision. It’s the rule of the people, not the rule of an ideology or its cronies. 

It is for that reason that Starmer’s Labour has not compromised itself to death but to life. During Corbyn’s tenure as leader, Labour failed to compromise with electoral expectations, duly suffering a devastating landslide defeat at the hands of Johnson’s Conservatives. While at the time, Starmer may have pledged allegiance to many of Corbyn's policies, his shift away is wise political phototropism. 

To maintain market confidence, the Labour government has ensured it remains iron-fisted on fiscal expenditure to avoid encouraging or appearing to encourage a re-run of the 2008 financial crisis. Its rhetoric is, unsurprisingly, reflective of this. Further, Britain is shifting to the right socially. The rise of Reform UK highlights the change in the consensus. The Party’s “unprecedented” domination in the 2025 Council elections reflects its weight at the ballot box, and no attribute (aside from simply not being the Conservatives or Labour) has been more attractive to Reform voters than its tough stance on immigration. Resultantly, HM Government has to be, and come across as, strong on migration. The contemporary electorate’s consensus has changed, as it did following the financial crisis - to ignore this change would be ill-advised if the Labour Party wishes to retain democratic and, more specifically, electoral relevance.

To not socio-economically adapt would be to grow away from the light in a move that only serves to betray the core values of what the Starmer administration is working to build. Thus, he is implementing what the success of New Labour and the failures of Jeremy Corbyn have taught him - political phototropism. Labour underwent major changes to become New Labour, and it has had to similarly change under Starmer, and long may it continue - for the Party appears to be finally relearning the significance of growing towards the light, not to its detriment, but for it to thrive.