What does Keir Starmer still believe in?

Sir Keir Starmer is coming up to a year as Prime Minister. There won’t be too many celebrations. For one thing, the man himself always insists on moving on with things, “getting the job done”, enacting “change”. That’s one of his primary characteristics, at least according to the interesting if hagiographical biography by Tom Baldwin, published last year, a few months before his election as Prime Minister. Though widely read by Starmer’s Labour supporters, the book has done little to introduce Starmer as a man to the wider electorate. Many feel they don’t know how to describe the Prime Minister’s character. Nor do they really know what his most important ideological standpoints would be. Perhaps this first anniversary is a good time to think about them.

In Baldwin’s biography, the author insistently refers back to Starmer’s childhood. The illness of his mother and the discipline of his father instilled in Starmer, he writes, a fundamental belief in “dignity”. As a prominent human rights lawyer, Starmer spent much of his time on pro bono work, which included defending international prisoners from the death penalty. The reason he became a politician, we are told, is the desire to ensure that dignity was available to the good, hard-working people from out of the way places such as his native Oxted. There’s not too much to be cynical about here. Starmer’s service to the Crown Prosecution Service was largely exemplary, and his references to his parents’ frustrated ambitions have been referred to so frequently that it cannot be dismissed as only a political tool.

But many would say that there hasn’t been much raising up of the lowly or dignifying the meek in his first year of office. The scrapping of the winter fuel allowance for a large number of its recipients is the most obvious example. Hard-working, retired people – in his opponent’s language – saw one of the state’s few helping hands disappearing. It was certainly an odd policy, given that the payment was no hot topic of contention, and widely accepted as a necessary fiscal burden. No one was, in Rachel Reeves’ oft-repeated words, “crying out for change” to this benefit. If there was consensus about the need to change policy for British pensioners, it was about the triple-lock on pensions. But the current government shows little sign of steeling up for the fight that would cause with certain voters than its predecessors. I wrote here about this problem before Starmer was elected. This real opportunity for long-term and sustainable change has so far been passed by.

The second theme of Baldwin’s biography is Starmer’s legal mindset. His career as a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers was undeniably impressive. It is also clear that the law, and politicians’ sticking to it, is an important personal principle. Two things are important about Starmer’s legal career in the political sphere. The first is the language he uses. Last month, The Economist addressed the Labour’s government’s use of “tabloidese”. It accuses ministers of using the vocabulary of hacks to sickening effect. “Banging the drum for Britain”, “turbocharging the economy” and “bumper boosts” have become meaningless phrases by overuse. This has something to do with the mindset of the administration’s leader. As a barrister, Starmer was known for building his case step by careful step. He won his crowds over by force of evidence, rather than by Ciceronian rhetoric or emotive eloquence. Tom Baldwin lists countless examples of his friends lamenting the public perception of the Starmer as a dull bureaucrat. But they could not really keep up the case of his government being a successful charm offensive.

The second reason why Starmer’s legal mindset matters is in government policy. If Starmer still insists his regime is one of radical change, then that change could only be described as incremental. That is not necessarily a bad thing: the British economy does not normally work in short-term cycles, but in long-term trends. Rachel Reeves had no scruples in repeatedly reminding the electorate this time last year that ‘the people are crying out for change’. But Labour’s rhetoric about procuring radical change sits oddly with their leader’s legalistic methods. The spending review on 11 June, for example, is set in the background of the previous changes Rachel Reeves has made in her Autumn Statement and first Budget. These points of contact with the electorate help to set the economic temperature of the government. They prepare the way for change, rather than launching radical new policies at every turn. That is certainly in line with the way Theresa May and her Chancellor, Philip Hammond, saw things working. It turned out that gradualism wasn’t really in vogue during the Brexit years. Perhaps Starmer and Reeves will be luckier. However, voters will start demanding results faster than might legal activists.

What, then, about Starmer’s self-professed dedication to “results”? Throughout the second half of Baldwin’s biography, this is as frequently mentioned as his reminders of his father’s occupation as a toolmaker. Idealistic in his youth, Starmer’s experience in the highest courts of the land has instilled in him a dedication to things changing “on the ground”. Just as a barrister must take on unfriendly clients to fulfil their professional duties, so must the politician make unseemly alliances and avoid contentious issues to get where they need to go. How successful has the Prime Minister been in sailing between the Scylla of loony idealism and the Charybdis of overzealous pragmatism?

The answers to that question are very much yet to be seen. Some results are on their way: the £113 billion of investment in a new transport project outside of London to be unveiled this week will be welcome. Plans for a more coherent corridor of investment between Oxford and Cambridge as centres for research and development is welcome. Targeting “growth, growth, growth” above all else is simplistic but necessary. But many of Labour’s flagship endeavours have yet to leave port. Rail nationalisation, begun last month, went unnoticed. The taxes on private education have yet to reveal any improvements in state provision. “Fiscal headroom” has seemingly disappeared, with blame predictably placed on geopolitical challenges. The government has done well to weather the challenges of the last year. But there is little evidence of the promised “radical change” coming in concrete years until the end of this parliamentary term.

It could not be said that Starmer was unclear about his ambitions for government in advance. In February 2023 he set out the five missions of his party: for economic growth, improving the NHS, keeping streets safe, enhancing social mobility and creating a “clean energy superpower”. None of them is any way close to completion. No doubt Starmer and Reeves will insist that the steps the government have taken are steps towards those goals. Important steps, even. But the government has been forced onto the back foot and been responsive to changes outside its control – the growth in support for Reform UK, Trump’s reelection, the continued frustration of plans for peace in Ukraine. Starmer was clear about what he believed, and how it was going to be achieved. Perhaps he was too clear, and too rigid. The Prime Minister may still believe in many of those tenets which his biographer highlights: the need for integrity in public life, dignity for working people, pragmatism and incremental change. Those are all laudable ambitions. But most of it is not radical and not quick. And some of it is dull.

For Starmer, the electoral jury has made up its mind as to his inscrutable character and often bland presentation. The result of the next general election will not be turned by the Prime Minister’s wit. That’s no matter. The judgement on his government’s effectiveness, however, has not yet been given. He should focus above all else on making sure that judgement is not a negative one.

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.