Sir Keir Starmer’s reboot is clearly a strategy to win over voters disillusioned with the government’s performance. The prime minister is personally unpopular. Labour’s standing in the polls has sunk after avoidable fights with pensioners and farmers. The public seem unimpressed by Sir Keir’s contradictory stance that Labour faces a worse inheritance than expected, yet his pre-election framing remains unchanged. If the former is true, the latter seems doubtful. Voters expect a government to tackle problems, not lament them. Hence, Sir Keir’s team aims to cast the five “missions” he outlined on the campaign trail into a delivery plan with updated targets.
Sounds familiar? It echoes the approach of the previous prime minister, Rishi Sunak. In January 2023, Mr Sunak attempted to turn the page on Tory chaos by making five ambitious pledges, including cutting NHS waiting lists and “stopping the boats”. He was supposed to be a calm, reassuring figure. Multiple cabinet reshuffles and stunning losses at the ballot box had him, less than a year later, vowing to end the “30-year status quo” in British politics. Voters thought the Tory leader never made good on his promise. In July, he led the Conservatives to the party’s worst-ever election defeat.
Sir Keir’s problem is that the times require a bigger change than anything he has contemplated. The public expects his government to cut NHS waiting lists quickly and control immigration fairly. They might also prefer governments to focus on improving tangible living standards rather than technocratic measures of economic growth. But where is the alternative political and economic vision to shape modern Britain? Sir Keir recognises the zeitgeist, framing the appointment of the cabinet secretary as a state “rewiring”. Yet Labour’s programme is tepid, often echoing failed Tory policies and ideas that fall short of addressing today’s concerns, let alone inspiring the transformative vision the party once embodied.
Labour has maintained cruel benefit policies, despite opposition from a former prime minister, Gordon Brown; upped the cost of public transport while continuing to cut taxes on motoring; and bet on making the country more attractive to foreign investors. Britain has become a haven for private profiteers exploiting state-backed control of resources, property and assets. The most obvious example is water privatisation, which has long looked like an organised rip-off, with rising bills funding shareholder payouts. Labour, so far, has offered rhetoric but no meaningful change.
The historian David Edgerton perceptively noted in the Guardian after the government’s budget speech that “employers and workers have been hit hard, while rentiers have been hit hardly at all”. Prof Edgerton argues that Sir Keir has overlooked Labour’s traditional role as a driving force for fairness and social progress, not just a party of welfare or growth. He points out that growing national income isn’t essential for equality or efficiency, and that progressive politics should align these goals to improve social and economic outcomes. The academic is right to say that the current mix of rising inequality, stagnating administration and marginal efficiency gains is unsustainable.
In 1997, the Labour government built on an economic legacy to forge a new governing agenda. However, Sir Keir faces a stuttering economy, struggling consumers, political turmoil and a weakened state. Pent-up social demands will conflict with the sluggish pace of visible change. However, an ageing Britain facing a net zero future cannot embrace the politics of stunted ambition. The prime minister should pursue bold actions and chart new directions, rather than repackaging old ideas as innovation. Sticking to the same path will only exacerbate Britain’s challenges, not solve them.