Labour Safe Seat in Danger – Will the Greens Take It?

Right, so, the latest bright idea being hinted at in the Westminster bubble rumour mill from Team Starmer seems to be this: when you’re bleeding support, when your cabinet looks thinner than gruel, and when your foreign policy has all the moral weight of wet cardboard, why not ship your Deputy Prime Minister off to Washington? That’ll fix it won’t it? David Lammy, the loyal lieutenant, is now being whispered about as Britain’s next Ambassador to the United States and despite denials this is how the Mandelson rumours about getting that post began too. On paper it might sound glamorous to some, but in reality, it reeks of desperation. A Prime Minister on life support, shuffling the deckchairs to impress Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, while at home risking a by-election in traditionally super-safe Tottenham that could implode Labour’s aura of safety if they lose it, but as far as losing that seat goes, the Greens are now positioned to punish Starmer and do exactly as new leader Polanski has said he intends to do – replace them.
Right, so all of this has begun as a whisper. Westminster thrives on whispers, and sometimes they stay as gossip, but sometimes they reveal the direction of travel. The latest murmur is that David Lammy, only just appointed Deputy Prime Minister is about to be offered the UK ambassadorship in Washington. On the face of it, that would be a glittering prize. Washington is the crown jewel of Britain’s diplomatic network, a post reserved for grandees. The fact that Lammy’s name is now being floated tells us something important, especially given the timing, right after his most recent reshuffle: that Keir Starmer is desperate, that he’s out of options after the Mandelson debacle, that his government is running on fumes, and that the risks of such a move would be immense.
Peter Mandelson’s appointment as Ambassador to Washington began in exactly the same way: whispers, leaks, speculative columns, the trending hashtags. It was dismissed as unlikely, even bizarre, until suddenly it was real. Westminster’s rhythm is predictable in this sense: today’s rumour is tomorrow’s headline. So while it is true that Lammy has not yet been appointed, the serious question is not whether he goes but what it would mean if he does.
For Labour it would mean weakness dressed up as strategy. It would mean a Prime Minister prepared to hollow out his own front bench to show loyalty abroad. And most importantly, it would mean triggering a by-election in Tottenham, Lammy’s seat, which is not the foregone conclusion many in Labour might have once assumed it to be. The very act of moving Lammy would expose the fragility of Labour’s coalition, its bleeding legitimacy over Gaza, and its vulnerability to a surging Green Party led by Zack Polanski.
To see why, we need to understand what it means to move a figure like Lammy out of Parliament. Lammy is not some minor minister easily replaced. He is the Deputy Prime Minister, only just appointed as such and one of the most senior figures in Labour’s cabinet. To remove him more or less within around a year of the general election, it would look less like strategy and more like panic, because it suggests that Starmer has so few loyal to him now, that he is prepared to sacrifice one of his most recognisable ministers simply to shore up relations with Washington and Tel Aviv. That is not the behaviour of a confident government; it is the behaviour of a government already on life support as polling very much implies.
Starmer’s calculation seems clear enough though, especially after the pats on the back he got for being Trump’s loyal poodle during that state visit. He wants to show Donald Trump, that Britain can be trusted. He wants to demonstrate to Israel that Labour is reliable, that it will not deviate from the Atlanticist line even as Gaza burns and even as he looks set at time of writing to actually recognise a Palestinian state. Sending Lammy to Washington would be a loyalty offering, a human signal that Britain is aligned come what may. But what does it cost? It costs a by-election in Tottenham, and with it the very real risk of deserved humiliation.
So let’s look at the hard numbers. At the 2024 general election, Lammy won Tottenham with 23,066 votes, amounting to 57.5 percent of the vote. The Greens came second with 7,632 votes, or 19 percent. Labour’s majority was 15,434 votes. Turnout was just under 53 percent. On paper, that is a comfortable margin. But politics is not all about arithmetic, it is also about context. And the context has changed dramatically. A by-election is not a general election. By-elections are volatile, turnout is typically lower, though the General Election turnout in 2024 was down on average nationwide. Protest votes however carry weight, and the national mood is sour. For the Greens to overturn Labour in Tottenham, they would need a swing of roughly 19 percentage points. That is large, but it is not impossible and Starmer’s popularity right now is there where Sunak’s was after the D-Day farce he triggered, that you might recall. We have seen bigger swings in by-elections before, especially where discontent is intense and concentrated and the mood in the country is mutinous.
Tottenham is not just any seat. It has a long Labour history. Before Lammy, it was represented by Bernie Grant, one of the most iconic Black MPs in British history, a radical voice on race and international solidarity. Tottenham is diverse, working-class, activist, politically vocal. Its residents are no strangers to struggle or to protest. This is not a constituency that sleepwalks. It is a constituency that feels deeply, that reacts strongly, that notices betrayal. And betrayal is exactly how many in Tottenham view Labour’s position on Gaza and their MP.
This is the live wire at the heart of the story. Gaza is not peripheral here. It is the central moral issue for a huge swathe of the electorate. Lammy’s own record does not help: his visits to Israel, his photo shaking hands with Benjamin Netanyahu, his rhetorical contortions to justify a line that many constituents find morally indefensible. In Tottenham, where large Muslim and Black communities are acutely aware of injustice abroad as well as at home, these gestures are seen not as diplomacy but as complicity. Every handshake, every equivocation, every silence in the face of Israeli atrocities is amplified by the local context. It is not just that Lammy is unpopular — it is that he has become a symbol of Labour’s betrayal.
Into this environment step the Greens. In 2024 they already came second as they did in 36 other seats nationwide. Since then, under the leadership of Zack Polanski, a leadership less than a month old, they have surged in membership and profile. Polanski is not the unknown in London he perhaps still is around the rest of the country. He is a London Assembly member, visible, articulate, and unafraid. He is Jewish and anti-Zionist, a combination that allows him to challenge Israel’s actions while deflecting the usual smears that critics of Zionism face. For Tottenham, that matters. If Polanski himself were to stand in a by-election, and this is total conjecture – the Greens will stand someone, it may not be him, but the opportunity would arise and I’m sure he’d be asked about it – then it would transform the contest from a local skirmish into a national confrontation. He would not be dismissed as a fringe figure. He would be the leader of a growing party currently surging, standing in the heart of London, taking on Labour in one of its most symbolic seats.
If the Greens put forward a lower-profile local candidate, Labour might arguably still hold, albeit with a reduced majority, though that said you can guarantee Polanski would be all over that campaign. But if Polanski himself ran, the by-election would explode onto the national stage. The mainstream media would be forced to cover it, it could give the Greens a massive main media boost. The contest would be framed as Labour versus the Greens, Starmer versus a pro-Palestine challenge, establishment loyalty versus grassroots outrage. And in that scenario, the swing required for a Green victory does not look implausible at all in my view. With turnout depressed among disillusioned Labour supporters, with anger mobilised by activists, with Polanski’s profile energising tactical anti-Labour voters, a 20-point swing could happen.
Even if Labour held the seat, the damage would be severe. A majority cut in half, or worse, would dominate the headlines. It would be read as a collapse of support in Labour’s heartlands. It would show that safe seats are not safe. It would embolden Labour’s critics, both within the party and outside. It would suggest that Starmer’s gamble had backfired, that instead of demonstrating loyalty abroad he had exposed weakness at home.
The consequences ripple out further. Within Labour, a Tottenham by-election loss, or even a humiliating near-loss, would destabilise Starmer’s leadership. It would embolden those sick of his failure and decline, who would argue that the Gaza stance is toxic – recognition if it comes today as expected is largely symbolic - and electorally suicidal. It would sow fear among MPs in other diverse seats, who would begin to question whether their own constituencies might revolt. It would force a reshuffle in the cabinet, creating winners and losers, though Starmer has fewer and fewer options, fuelling factional bitterness. And it would weaken Starmer’s authority at precisely the moment when he desperately wants to be projecting stability, but it’d be his choice to appoint Lammy at the end of the day wouldn’t it?
For the Greens, the opportunity is obvious. A victory in Tottenham would be historic — their first real breakthrough in inner London, a signal that they can replace Labour as the voice of the left as Polanski has declared his intention to do. Even a strong second place would be a platform to claim that they are the true opposition on moral issues to build on going forwards. Membership would grow, fundraising would improve, media coverage would expand. The Greens would emerge from a by-election not just as a nuisance but as a genuine threat.
And what of foreign policy? If Labour loses Tottenham over Gaza, its claim to moral leadership collapses. If it losing in London, their prospects beyond that are probably even worse. It becomes clear that the public is willing to punish politicians over foreign policy stances, not just bread-and-butter issues. Labour would be forced to recalibrate, or risk further damage. The government’s credibility abroad might be shored up by Lammy in Washington, but at home its legitimacy would be in tatters and we’re the ones with a vote.
All of this reveals something fundamental about Starmer’s leadership. He is not governing from a position of strength. He is governing from fear. His calculation in moving Lammy would not be about vision but about appeasement. He would be telling Trump and Netanyahu: Britain can be trusted. But he would be telling the British people: your outrage does not matter. That is not a sustainable strategy. Governments cannot hollow themselves out at home to project loyalty abroad without consequences.
This is why Tottenham matters so much. It is not just another seat. It is a constituency with history, with symbolism, with moral weight. To trigger a by-election there is to invite judgment on Labour’s soul at a time when people are feeling very judgemental. And in politics, symbolism matters as much as numbers. A Tottenham loss would be a national earthquake. A Tottenham near-loss would still shake the foundations.
Starmer’s rumoured gambit, if it comes to pass, if the rumour mill is ringing true on this occasion, is not a clever piece of strategy. It would be a reckless move born of desperation. It risks everything — his cabinet stability, his electoral base, his moral credibility — for the sake of sending a signal abroad. If Tottenham revolts, it will not just be Lammy who is gone. It will be Starmer’s leadership itself potentially. It will be the sense that Labour can turn things around with such ineptitude in charge. It will be the illusion that loyalty abroad can be purchased without cost to them at home.
So this is not just about one by-election. It is about whether Labour can survive as a party that claims to represent justice while siding with injustice abroad. It is about whether Starmer’s leadership can endure the perception that he is more concerned with pleasing Washington than listening to Tottenham. It is about whether British politics will continue to treat foreign policy as something voters ignore, or whether Gaza has changed the calculus.
And so the whisper matters. Because whispers can become headlines, and headlines can become history. If Lammy goes to the US, the by-election will come. And if the by-election comes, the gamble could become a crisis for Starmer and hand the Greens a massive boost and possibly their next MP. Would that be Polanski himself? Well I guess we’ll have to see what happens.
Of course this would just be one more problem amongst many that Starmer has on his plate right now, another going vastly underreported concerns a book due for publication soon, a single page of which released as an excerpt just took down one of his top aides, so with some 500 more pages still to go, how much more trouble is he in? Get all the details of that story in this video recommendation here as your suggested next watch.
Please do also hit like, share and subscribe if you haven’t done so already so as to ensure you don’t miss out on all new daily content as well as spreading the word and helping to support the channel at the same time which is very much appreciated, holding power to account for ordinary working class people and I will hopefully catch you on the next vid. Cheers folks.