Stuck in first gear
Keir Starmer returned from Buckingham Palace last July to a Blair-like reception at Downing Street; to many it felt like Britain had entered into a new era, one full of optimism and most importantly, the prospect of Labour’s promise for change – things felt like they could only get better.
This mood has evidently shifted, as a year on, Labour’s victory comes with a feeling of unease over what this government actually stands for.
This issue did not start from Starmer’s triumphant entrance into Number 10, but long before it. Labour found itself in a peculiar position of fighting the last election where they could win merely for not being the Tories; something which they were not only aware of, but practically ran the election on, with Labour adopting the mantra of “change”.
While this made for easy votes, it facilitated a rushed, unpolished agenda, to slip through the cracks under little scrutiny, one which is now in the firing line.
Ideal for winning, but not for governing
When voters look back at Labour’s pre-election message, they see a muddle of slogans and relaunches; from the vague “five missions” to the short-lived “first steps for change.”
A government without a clear sense of purpose cannot expect to build public confidence. Clarity was needed from the outset. Instead, Labour entered office with a foggy agenda and is now facing the consequences of failing to define what it stands for.
Back when the Conservatives entered office in 2010, everyone knew what they were about: Resetting the fiscal orthodoxy of the country in order to balance the books after the financial crisis. These cuts were proposed to the electorate during the election, and everyone knew that’s what that coalition government was there to deliver; that’s not to say everyone agreed with the idea of austerity, but they knew that’s what the government’s agenda was and did not doubt that they were legitimate in pursuing their actions.
Labour claim they find themselves in a similar situation of the coalition of 2010, with the Chancellor claiming the need to balance the books due to a “£22bn blackhole”.
The issue here is that these cuts, unlike the Tories, were not proposed to the electorate, causing a void of trust straight from the outset at the beginning of Starmer’s premiership – Rishi Sunak warned time and again that once Labour were in power they would raise taxes after saying otherwise, which is exactly the line of events which followed.
Even now Rachel Reeves pedals the line that there will no tax rises in this Parliament despite the optics of the economy continue to look bleak with something inevitably having to give at the next budget, with the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies agreeing, saying: “Reeves will have to raise taxes further in the coming years.”
Going in the wrong direction
The sharp U- turn on winter fuel payment cuts and the rebellion over the Welfare Bill are latest additions to Labour’s enigma.
Governments of the past have often struggled when their economic plans are not clear, with Starmer having the additional headache of not having the political capital to make cuts to public services and the welfare state without a rebellion from his backbenchers, unlike the Tories had.
It would be easy to say that the predicament surrounding the government’s agenda is solely an economic one, but the real issue has a more fundamental basis. Starmer’s authority is in an absolutely dire state for a Prime Minister who just achieved a thumping election victory and one of the biggest landslides in recent British political history.
For your position to deteriorate that quickly from such a position indicates there is serious contemplation within the Labour ranks as to whether Starmer is the one to take the party forward.
This, in turn, has tainted his ability to govern effectively; with major U-turn after U-turn further eroding his party’s supposed agenda.
A year on from the promise of change the Prime Minister finds himself with the outlook bleak and a party which does not respect his authority.
The hope that once surrounded Starmer’s premiership has withered into doubt; not because the challenges were too great, but because the leadership has too often been absent.
A year into power, Labour finds itself directionless, unsure whether to govern with boldness or caution, conviction or calculation. But leadership demands more than caution; it demands clarity, courage and the willingness to stake out a vision that may not please everyone but at least tells the country where it’s headed.
Unless Starmer finds the resolve to define not just what he’s against, but what he is truly for, his government risks being remembered not for the change it promised, but for the opportunity it squandered.
Featured image via Fred Duval / Shutterstock.
