The act of voting can’t be relied upon to bring real change

It only adds to the lack of enthusiasm for Labour in the first place. Hence, the term “loveless landslide” about the party’s General Election victory – unlike that for Blair and “New” Labour in 1997.

A long-standing palpable dissatisfaction with the Tories gave other political parties a fillip – including, unfortunately, of course, Reform. Change of different sorts was hoped for and expected in different measures by those who voted for these other parties.

Change is not what we are getting despite the proclamation on the podium at Labour’s conference that “Change Begins”. “Same old, same old” might have been a more accurate and appropriate.

So, where does this leave our system of parliamentary democracy and the legitimacy upon which it depends on in order to function? Cutting to the chase, this is exactly why concise clichés from the past now have a renewed relevance.

READ MORE: Keir Starmer out of step with Labour voters on Israel stance, poll suggests

These seek to strip away any pretence of genuine popular democracy and power through the ballot box and the indirect form of liberal democracy we know as parliamentary democracy.

Early American but Russian-born anarchist Emma Goldman (1869-1940), pictured, is often quoted as saying: “If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.” American author Mark Twain (1835-1910), reputedly opined: “If voting made any difference, they wouldn’t let us do it.”

And then, much more recently, former left Labour MP and London mayor Ken Livingston called his 1987 book If Voting Changed Anything, They’d Abolish It. These only add to another old anarchist aphorism, authorship unknown: “Don’t vote, it only encourages them.”

(As it turns out neither Goldman nor Twain did make those statements, but that’s hardly the point as they have become well known and well used.)

In other words, we should not expect significant economic, political or social progressive change to happen as a result of just voting in elections. Such change would require something else, even if short of revolution.

Lithuanian-born American anarchist Emma Goldman This reminds me of a saying from a different political platform – that of Trotskyist tendencies – which goes: “Labour, Tories all the same – always play the bosses’ game.”

Such sayings, which now chime with a lived popular political experience, show that we may be entering a new and unlikely period of political epiphany for many. All this means that the popular consent that is needed for the political class to rule is starting to come undone. Coercion – even of the economic kind – is never enough, so consent is required, the consent of the governed that confers political legitimacy upon the government to govern.

Political legitimacy itself involves the acceptance of authority by the people where at least some semblance of benefit to the masses is thereupon conferred. Power can then be rightfully exercised by the government.

What does all this mean for the Labour Government? It does not necessarily mean mass revolt on the streets any time soon as reluctant resignation is more likely. But given certain events and opportunities, this reluctant resignation could turn into revolt and rebellion, even if the sullenness did not necessarily turn into socialism.

For the time being at least, the Tories – north or south of the Border – will not stand to benefit from this.

READ MORE: Sue Gray quits as Keir Starmer's chief of staff

What might be such events and opportunities? Public sector pay is one. Reeves’s benevolence this year is unlikely to be repeated in 2025-26 as Labour wished to at least avoidance confrontation with the unions too quickly. Pensioners freezing to death this winter may be another.

The forms they may take of rebellion could be mass strikes and mass demonstrations and the creation of a new left political party around the likes of Jeremy Corbyn and his followers.

But it’s hard to make precise predictions because we are now entering a new political period where the terrain has not been tested before. Resistance to Blair and “New” Labour took at least the term of one parliament to come to pass.

Nonetheless, whatever happens, we can expect an even more torrid and tumultuous time to open up for Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves and Angela Rayner.

This is likely to see another movement of the tectonic plates of politics where the old conventional ways of working no longer function quite so well, presenting problems of political legitimacy not only for those currently in government but also for those that come next.

But even if declining political legitimacy means rising political instability, we are not yet, alas, at the point where the ruling class is no longer capable of governing in the old ways and the working class is no longer prepared to be governed on the old ways.

Professor Gregor Gall is a research associate at the University of Glasgow and editor of A New Scotland: Building An Equal, Fair And Sustainable Society (Pluto Press 2022, paperback £14.99)