As Winston Churchill once observed of parliamentary politics, Keir Starmer's adversaries lack the singular advantage that incumbency bestows upon him: he can act, while they can only talk. The pressing question, then, is what he should do to rebuild his premiership.
Starmer's Defining Speech
The prime minister is poised to defy his critics within the Labour Party, asserting that he is uniquely positioned to confront the nation's significant challenges. In a career-defining address scheduled for Monday morning, Starmer will declare: "Strength through fairness. It's a core Labour argument. And you will see those values writ large in the King's Speech. You will see hope, urgency, and exactly whose side we are on." He will further emphasise: "People need hope. We will face up to the big challenges and make the big arguments."
Remarkably, policy has been conspicuously absent from the fevered speculation about Labour's leadership in recent days. The discourse has centred almost entirely on personalities and ideological differences with the prime minister. Even at its best, the debate tends to become entangled with the psephological puzzle of which poses the greater threat to Labour—the Green Party or Reform UK—and thus which direction the government should take to reclaim the half of its voters who have switched allegiances since the last general election.
The Stalking Horse and Rayner's Ultimatum
As things currently stand, Catherine West, a backbencher who has volunteered to act as a "stalking horse," has yet to find her way out of the paddock. However, this could change rapidly if she secures the 81 MPs necessary to launch a challenge. Labour insiders believe she is approaching that threshold. Meanwhile, Angela Rayner issued what amounted to an ultimatum on Sunday afternoon, branding this Sir Keir's "last chance" to alter course. She demanded enhanced economic powers for regional mayors, a higher minimum wage, and that Labour be "unafraid to promote new forms of public, community, and cooperative ownership across the board," while also backing Andy Burnham's return.
It would require a spectacular leap of imagination to conclude that the Labour Party is unpopular because it is not left-wing enough. Keir Starmer must therefore remain faithful to both his centrist principles and the manifesto on which he and his party were elected. No amount of nudging from Ms Rayner should alter that.
Setting the Course
It falls to the prime minister to settle questions about the future and chart the course for the next phase of his administration. He has already taken initial steps, moving swiftly to make clear that he will not be removed without a fight. He will have ample further opportunities to command headlines for the right reasons in the coming days. A "reset" speech on Monday, the King's Speech on Wednesday, and subsequent media attention should focus on what the government intends to "do" next. As has been painfully evident for some time, Sir Keir's government lacks the kind of "narrative" that can sustain a reforming administration through difficult times—tough decisions that will ultimately be vindicated and promote both public well-being and the national interest. A programme of fresh legislation will highlight priorities.
This gives the prime minister and his party something more consequential to ponder than how Andy Burnham might return to parliament when there is no such thing as a safe Labour seat. Ironically, the very electoral weakness that makes Sir Keir's leadership so precarious also makes it considerably harder for his most dangerous rival to supplant him.
Action Over Words
So much for speeches and talk. The prime minister and his ministers must also act. Too much of the circular discussion within Labour revolves around whether it should lean further left or tack to the centre, when the simple truth is that it needs to demonstrate competence and—in the dreaded phrase—"deliver." Sir Keir and his government would not now be in such a predicament if they had avoided blunders such as cutting pensioners' winter fuel allowance or attempting to be overly clever by appointing Peter Mandelson as ambassador to Washington. More to the point, Sir Keir would not be fighting for his job if he had indeed "smashed the gangs," stopped the small boats, and closed the "asylum hotels." The public would not be so disenchanted if the "number one priority" he set himself—restoring economic growth—had been achieved.
The same applies to reducing NHS waiting lists, rebuilding Britain's defences, boosting trade with the EU, and protecting people from the worst effects of the ongoing cost-of-living crisis. Europe must be at the centre of these efforts, making the case for how closer links can enhance Britons' prosperity and security in a more protectionist and unsafe world.
In some of these areas, there have been successes—too little trumpeted—but there is no point in denying the failures. Sir Keir's opponents and enemies, both inside and outside his own party, will only be silenced if he can make a tangible difference to people's lives and address voters' concerns, rather than leaving them feeling ignored. Last week's elections were the mother of all protest votes, but, as Sir Keir points out, it is doubtful that a majority of people want Zack Polanski or Nigel Farage to be prime minister.
That, clearly, does not mean they want Sir Keir to keep the job. He needs to prove he is up to the challenge, can deliver results, and effect the "change" he promised less than two years ago. That way, his narrative almost writes itself—if he still has time.
