When Keir Starmer became leader of the Labour Party, many hoped he would bring calm, competence and moral clarity after the turmoil of the Corbyn years.
Starmer presented himself as a serious alternative to 14 years of turbulent Conservative rule. But despite winning the general election and being appointed Prime Minister, it is becoming increasingly clear that Starmer’s leadership lacks the ideological substance necessary for long-term success.
Call it Starmerism, but it is failing faster than expected. Cracks are already showing in Starmer’s leadership, and he will likely be remembered as a former Prime Minister who struggled to deliver on his promises.
The first major problem with Starmer’s leadership is the lack of a clear ideological direction. Throughout his time in opposition, Starmer positioned himself as an oppositional force to the Conservative Party, rather than a leader with a clear vision for the country.
While his strategy revolved around criticising the government’s failures, from its handling of Brexit to its handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, it was often difficult to understand what Starmer himself stood for.
As I argued in my report for the Henry Jackson Society, Sir Keir Starmer’s Future Foreign Policy, his foreign policy approach is based on vague clichés rather than a coherent doctrine. The same can be said about his domestic policy. Starmer has repeatedly avoided taking clear positions on key issues.
He has preferred to appease and appease both the left and right wings of his party. This may have helped him win the leadership and navigate a turbulent opposition camp, but it is a strategy that will not work in government, where clear direction and persuasion are needed.
A key example of Starmer’s failure to deliver is on immigration. One of the country’s biggest problems is the ongoing crisis in the English Channel, where thousands of migrants arrive in small boats. Starmer made bold claims during the election campaign, declaring that he would “stop the boats” and “break up the gangs” involved in smuggling people into the UK.
But there are few signs his government has any meaningful plan to achieve this goal. With the Rwanda Plan abandoned, its promises to crack down on criminal gangs ring hollow without a comprehensive deterrence strategy.
Moreover, Starmer’s economic policies are already at a dead end. His main aim – the abolition of non-dom status, which allows wealthy individuals to avoid paying tax in the UK on income earned overseas – was a central part of his campaign for a fairer tax system.
But it is widely believed he will change course after the Treasury showed that the policy brought no benefits and only led to wealth being drained from the UK. Starmer’s economic plans, like his immigration policy, are riddled with half-measures and setbacks that have left the public confused and frustrated.
The situation within his own party also points to the fragility of his leadership. Rosie Duffield’s recent resignation from the Labour Party was a scathing verdict on Starmer’s lack of experience and political acumen. Duffield, a senior MP, accused Starmer of being out of touch with ordinary people’s concerns and highlighted his limited experience in the tough world of politics.
As she pointed out in her resignation letter, Starmer is one of the most inexperienced politicians to become Prime Minister in modern times. Unlike previous party leaders, he has not honed his political skills behind the scenes or cultivated a loyal following within the party.
His rise to power rested heavily on his qualifications as a former Director of Public Prosecutions, rather than on his political instincts or ideology. This inexperience is now clearly visible in his dealings with his party and the government.
Mr Starmer has struggled to maintain unity within the Labour Party, with factions on both the left and right openly criticising his leadership. The lack of a clear ideological direction means that Mr Starmer cannot rely on a unified base of support, leaving him vulnerable to rebellion within his own ranks.
At the same time, his cautious and managerial style of government has failed to inspire public confidence. Many voters who were attracted to him by his promises of competence and stability now question whether he has the vision and appetite to tackle the country’s big challenges.
Ultimately, Keir Starmer’s downfall will be his failure to deliver on the promises that got him elected. His lack of ideological substance, U-turns on key policies, and inexperience as a political leader will make it difficult for him to build a lasting legacy.
The issues facing Britain – economic inequality, immigration, and political division – are complex and require bold, decisive action. Starmer’s cautious, reactive approach is ill-suited to the task at hand.
Of course, absent a radical change of course, Keir Starmer will probably remain just another Prime Minister. His tenure may be characterised more by missed opportunities and unfulfilled promises than by sustained success. In the end, Starmer’s politics may be remembered as a short-lived, failed experiment in centrist pragmatism, doomed to failure for his lack of conviction and vision.
