Ending 14 years of Conservative rule was supposed to bring an end to dysfunctional government. In the speech that launched his 2024 general election campaign, Sir Keir Starmer said that “a vote for Labour is a vote for stability … a vote to stop the chaos”. Less than two years later, Sir Keir’s government looks no sturdier than its predecessors. The prime minister’s chances of serving a full term in office look slim.
There are as many reasons for this precipitous decline as there are Labour MPs calling for a change of direction. The common analysis is that a project branded by the single word “change” has neither transformed people’s lives for the better nor given them confidence that a transformation is coming. For many voters, the prime minister is the embodiment of a miserable status quo.
The government has a reforming agenda, but it lacks the coherence and radicalism that are needed to instil a sense of national destination – an idea of the more prosperous, secure country Britain could become.
Wednesday’s king’s speech contained instructive examples of the problem. Two bills are likely to prove controversial with very different audiences: a planned law that will facilitate Britain’s alignment with EU single market rules in some sectors of the economy, and immigration reforms that will make it harder for new refugees and people who have already settled in Britain to qualify for permanent residency and citizenship.
The former will be denounced by enthusiasts for Brexit as a betrayal of the regulatory sovereignty that was supposedly won by leaving the EU. The latter could stir rebellion on the Labour benches among MPs who feel that it is a cruel exercise in anti‑immigration zeal drafted to appeal to supporters of Reform UK.
The combination describes an inherent confusion in Sir Keir’s programme. He promises to put Britain back “at the heart” of Europe in recognition that Brexit has been a disaster. He accuses Nigel Farage of failing to take accountability for such an epic misjudgment. He also limits his European ambition with a prohibition on single market membership because that would require free movement of people. He pursues a migration policy that is a tribute in tone and substance to Mr Farage’s agenda.
The contradiction is a function of Sir Keir’s 2024 manifesto, which was designed to offer maximum reassurance to people in areas that had voted leave in the referendum and who might suspect Labour of harbouring intent to undo Brexit.
The same cautious tactics led the party in opposition to pledge not to raise taxes on “working people” which, once in office, left Rachel Reeves boxed in by a tightly self-imposed fiscal framework. Fear of validating an old criticism of Labour as innately spendthrift and fear of even broaching important strategic questions about Britain’s relationship with Europe have set the contours of Sir Keir’s project more than any ideas or arguments he has articulated.
A government that allows its programme to be defined so negatively, as the balance that is left after subtracting the sum of things it dare not do, will not inspire voters. It demoralises loyal supporters, too. Sir Keir’s campaign promise of stable, non-chaotic government assumed change could be delivered cautiously, without the courage to confront hard arguments and without bold conviction. He has instead proved that those are indispensable qualities in an effective prime minister.
-
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
