Reader TTS

We’re a bit wiser about what Starmerism is, though not much. But we are beginning to see what it’s not. Starmerism is not apologetic. It’s not chasing the 24-hour news cycle. It’s not fleet

of foot. It’s not sunny, rah-rah Blairism.  Keir Starmer’s speech to the Labour faithful was — dour is perhaps too strong a word — but certainly stone cold sober. Those hoping for a burst of

sunshine and good cheer would have been disappointed. Instead the Prime Minister, echoing an equally steely performance by his Chancellor Rachel Reeves, delivered a measured, clear,

unambiguous message: we’re not out of the woods. Hang in there. We’re working on it. There is a plan.  It’s been a rough few weeks for the new Labour Government: freebie clothes and designer

glasses for ministers; a shockingly inept rollout of the new Winter Fuel Allowance policy; a rebellion at the Labour conference; a confected row over the fact that Sue Gray, Starmer’s Chief

of Staff, gets £3000 a year more than him.  Meanwhile the clouds gather: Ukraine, the Middle East, sky-high NHS queues, small boats, poor productivity, winter fuel bills approaching, the

Bank of England warning that interest rate falls will be slow and meagre, despite welcome news that growth has been higher than forecast this year.  An administration’s tone is set by its

leader. Starmer isn’t a laugh-a-minute politician. Unavoidably the response to these and other charges of lack of grip, betrayal of the elderly, freeloading, hypocrisy has been stiff and

formulaic.  The right-wing press is hailing the shortest honeymoon of any government in history. (The Daily Telegraph, once a great and serious paper, is rabid in its criticism, but that’s

another story.)  It’s less than three months since voters booted out the Tories. Labour has yet to deliver its first Budget, the first real opportunity to lay out its economic doctrine.  So

what is froth and what is not?  Starmer’s landslide was a loveless one. A win born out of desperation at a decade and a half of tumult. Like an arranged marriage, it may grow bonds of

affection in time. But that will only happen if voters don’t just _ see _ real change from a government whose single-word motto is “Change”, but _ feel _ it. To use Starmer’s hero Harold

Wilson’s famous phrase: they need to feel more pounds in their pocket.  It’s fair to say that, so far, the victory engineered by Starmer and his close adjutants (Pat MacFadden, Sue Gray and

Morgan McSweeney, already planning for election 2028) has pleased hardly anyone.  The Left is furious at Starmer’s refusal soften the blow for pensioners on the cliff-edge losing their £300

winter fuel cheque; proponents of closer links with Europe can’t understand why he refuses to allow limited free movement of young people; business is worried about his proposals to

strengthen workers’ rights; the populist Right (Reform UK got nearly 15 per cent of the vote) want faster movement on reducing immigration.  Number 10’s flow chart for government wasn’t

pitch perfect on July 5. What a government does in its fabled first 100 days matters. It sets the tone of a parliament, signals to the electorate what it can expect and boosts the morale of

its supporters.  Starmer’s transformation of his party in just four years into a battle-ready force has been nothing short of remarkable. He hasn’t, however, demonstrated the same degree of

control and command in his first months in office. But then he, like the rest of us, including the Tories, was caught off-guard by Rishi Sunak’s snap election call. The leaks around Sue Gray

and her pay (a storm in a thimble if ever there was one) suggests he needs to reshape his core team. He can’t allow himself to be distracted by frivolous Whitehall infighting. If he wants

to fix a “broken Britain” by bringing about deep change in health and social care, in the workplace, in public services, in investment, then Starmer has to get a grip.  Where his critics are

wrong is to confuse poor delivery with lack of substance. Starmer’s core message is that more government and a free market with suitable guardrails can work perfectly well together. This is

not quite Blairism. It doesn’t have Blair’s flourish. Starmerism is altogether grittier and more down-to-earth.  His speech laid this out clearly as a route to “shape the great forces”

which determine the fate of our communities: climate change, migration, insecurity of work, crime. He wants an interventionist government, not as an end in itself but a means to an end. An

enabling state, not an interventionist one.  The path is clear but the message is sometimes dissonant. Banning smoking in beer gardens or shortened pub opening hours are hardly consistent

with “government treading more lightly in your lives”. The pushback from voters will smooth out these rough edges.  The one big, clear plus of Starmer’s leadership has been the almost

instant rehabilitation of Britain’s image with the UK’s allies. The British Prime Minister walks tall once again in the corridors of power.  The first Labour party conference in power for 14

years was not a festival of joy. Frustration over Labour’s equivocation on the wars in the Middle East and its means testing of the winter fuel allowance for pensioners lent an occasional

hard edge to the proceedings.   The polls show Starmer’s ratings in freefall. But that’s yesterday’s news, tomorrow’s fish and chip wrapper. Starmer is a serious leader for a serious time.

He’s not someone who thinks problems can be solved with a rhetorical flourish. He has a plan: he calls it government by service. Now he has to deliver.  A MESSAGE FROM THEARTICLE _We are the

only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one that’s needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing

throughout these hard economic times. So please, make a donation._