The below content first appeared in Politics.co.uk’s Politics@Lunch newsletter, sign-up for free and never miss our daily briefing.
Less than five months after the general election, a petition calling on Keir Starmer to dissolve parliament and do it all over again has amassed two million signatures.
“I would like there to be another General Election”, the relevant charter reads. “I believe the current Labour Government have gone back on the promises they laid out in the lead up to the last election”. (One assumes Brenda from Bristol, of “not another one!” fame, has withheld her support).
Still, the petition has now far surpassed the threshold of 100,000 signatories needed for it to be debated in parliament. Under the current rules established in 2015, any such parley will take place in Westminster Hall, the MP debating chamber which considers motions expressed in neutral terms. As such, when MPs resolve “That this House has considered [petition X]”, that, all else being equal, is that.
So even if MPs do end up debating the petition, there remains no constitutional mechanism whereby an extra-parliamentary campaign can directly secure the dissolution of parliament (assuming King Charles III isn’t among the signatories). In this regard, Westminster custom compels me to dismiss the petition as aimless “noise”.
But governments can make the mistake of succumbing to outside noise, or seeking to harness it for their own political ends (usually to get out of a tight spot). From 2022-2024, for instance, there was no focus group panellist whose whims Sunak would not contort to appease. (By now, one speculates, Sunak’s sleeves would already be sodden). Meanwhile, commentators should remain cautious when reading wider significance into synchronised outbreaks of extra-parliamentary disharmony.
2 million signatories, however, is a lot. The majority of e-petitions started on the petition committee website, the House of Commons library notes, gain less than 1,000.
***Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.***
It has been pointed out that individuals from outside of the UK could be signing the petition using UK-based postcodes. When signing an e-petition, you must enter your name, email address, country of origin and postcode. That’s it. Nothing prevents someone from falsely registering as a UK citizen, provided they enter a valid postcode and email address. But beyond the petition’s (possibly artificial) numerical heft, the wider campaign has been picked up, cited and celebrated by frontline politicians with genuine reach.
“One million people express their anger that Labour lied”, Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, wrote on X yesterday. Richard Tice, deputy leader of Reform UK and MP for Boston and Skegness, urged his followers to “make this the biggest petition ever in [the] UK”.
One Nigel Farage also chimed in: “This petition has already reached 750,000 signatures in 24 hours. It won’t be long before it passes 1 million. I’ve never seen anything like it”. (Reform’s three other MPs — Lee Anderson, Rupert Lowe and James McMurdock — have dutifully shared the petition on X).
The level of noise the petition is generating cannot be separated from the wider political context. Petitions relating to elections have been debated in the past. In October 2022, a petition with more than 900,000 signatures calling for “an immediate general election to end the chaos of the current government” was debated in parliament. Yet this time feels different — not because it will be any more successful, but because of the novel forces it signifies.
Over the weekend, Observer columnist Andrew Rawnsley highlighted the hostility with which the government is viewed by some very-online electors. The general sentiment of X’s anti-Starmer activists is encapsulated by a series of tongue-twisting sobriquets: “Starmer Farmer Harmer”, they blast; “Two-Tier Keir”, they retort; “Free Gear Keir”, they protest; and “Gap Year Keir”, they bay.
Starmer, in short, has made a whole host of enemies in a short space of time. Or, more specifically, a host of already-critical online voices have intensified their antagonism since Starmer entered No 10.
And first among these critics, as I noted over the weekend, features the world’s richest man: Elon Musk.
“The people of Britain have had enough of a tyrannical police state”, Musk declared on Sunday in response to the petition. On Saturday, he shared the petition twice, by responding “Interesting” and “Wow” to separate posts from anonymous account Inevitable West.
It is a further signal that the channels spreading anti-Starmer criticisms are becoming more streamlined, vicious and relentless. The “Inevitable West” account, created just last month, has already accumulated 85,500 followers. It mainly shares stories on UK politics and, in some cases, generates millions of views. Musk’s regular interactions have undoubtedly aided its rise.
And these channels are, increasingly, propelling stories into mainstream conversations. Keir Starmer and Home Office minister Jess Phillips were both questioned about the petition today. “That isn’t how our system works”, the former responded, adding: “There will be plenty of people who didn’t want us in in the first place, so what I focus on is the decisions that I have to make every day.”
But speaking to ITV’s This Morning, Starmer was pressed further on his low approval ratings. Host Andy Peters told the PM: “You want us, the public, to trust you and like you and think ‘he’s the man to do the job’. But your approval ratings are lower than Nigel Farage’s right now.”
The reason the petition has been interpreted as important is because it befits a narrative of this government as at war on all fronts. The petition follows the farmers’ protest early last week and the longer-running revolt against Labour’s winter fuel allowance cut. Peters, meanwhile, is dead right about Starmer’s favourability ratings.
But the prime minister knows that if he becomes bogged down in such battles, his government risks appearing vindictive and distracted. Responding to online criticism, from Musk in particular, only emboldens and legitimises its perpetrators. For ordinary voters questioning the purpose of this government, the sight of Starmer engaging in feuds with online critics would harden nascent doubts. As Sunak discovered, reacting to noise undermines a government’s messaging on outcomes and delivery.
***Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.***
There is also a wider story here about the position of Reform and the party’s evolving dynamic with Starmer. This parliament, Reform is emerging as the parliamentary wing of Britain’s terminally online, perennially resentful keyboard warriors. And Farage’s commons bridgehead means he has a platform to challenge Starmer, even directly, on whatever issue is consuming X in any given week.
It also speaks to Reform’s central challenge this parliament. Farage is the lead spokesperson of a band of five MPs — a frankly puny commons force. But if Reform is to advance, he must sustain the sense of insurgency that inspired the party’s election successes.
The populist worldview is a demanding one. At every turn, Reform activists must view victory as only ever one final heave away. Defeats — be they trivial or totemic, or close-run or inevitable — force Reform activists to become more familiar with their party’s central credos and move forth once more.
In sum, by picking his battles brashly, Farage can maintain enthusiasm among Reform’s online base in the near term — before pivoting to the wider public in the longer term and/or during elections.
The bottom line, in the end, is this: neither Farage nor Musk nor their online acolytes will ever be convinced by Starmer, even if he begins to succeed. In the years leading up to the next election then, Labour will be faced with waves of abrasive criticism that Reform — by virtue of its relevance (proved by council by-elections and opinion polls) — will spin into the media cycle. Already, every action of the government triggers some manner of media-political furore — and Starmer, always at the storm’s centre, is inevitably ascribed the worst of intentions. No measure is immune from the churn of noisy controversy that Starmer vowed to end in opposition.
Today’s “noise”, therefore, is a reminder that policy delivery will not be enough for Starmer. Even if Labour begins to make advances, the PM will be forced to prove it under a hostile, concerted and unrelenting Faragist siege.
Subscribe to Politics@Lunch
Lunchtime briefing
Rory Stewart, Amber Rudd among cross-party campaign demanding major political reform
Lunchtime soundbite
‘One of the things we’re going to have to do is rewire everything, so what I’m not going to do is comment on every bit of micro-policy’
— Kemi Badenoch responds to question on whether she would reverse the rise in employers’ national insurance that was announced in the budget as PM.
Now try this…
‘Who’s who in Kemi Badenoch’s inner circle?’
PoliticsHome reports.
‘“Slippery slope” fears over assisted dying have echoes of abortion debate’
Via the Guardian.
‘Badenoch must regain migration credibility to see off Reform, win a 2029 majority, and keep her job’
ConservativeHome’s William Atkinson writes.
On this day in 2022:
Nurses are getting ‘fair’ pay rise says Barclay, as strike dates announced
