One year on, is Starmer still the best man Labour has for the job? | OneFootball

Keir Starmer has had the worst first year of any Labour prime minister since 1945 – less impressive, even, than Harold Wilson in his turbulent return to power in 1974.

Starmer’s team will dismiss that judgement. But that is precisely the problem: self-denial, defensiveness and an ignorance of history – not least the history of their own party. It points also to Starmer’s ongoing inability to pick the right people to surround himself with in No 10 – people who know how to do their jobs; who know what the prime minister should do; and who understand the system.

Let’s start with the positives. In the first year, he’s shown that he is very bright, hardworking, much better at foreign policy than most anticipated, and almost preternaturally calm under pressure.

There have been some successes – school breakfast clubs, cuts in NHS waiting lists, and three trade deals among them. Not a long list, and some are more promises than bankable achievements. But they are not insignificant.

But then, look at the downsides. Economic recovery? Non-existent. Improvements in public services and illegal immigration? Patchy.

Despite enjoying a weak and divided Tory opposition, Starmer has not performed well politically, alienating his own backbenchers, reigniting Corbynism, and doing nothing to quell the rise of Nigel Farage and Reform.

In political terms, the last seven days have been some of the worst for a Labour prime minister in years, with the U-turns culminating in the welfare bill farce on Tuesday evening, a series of embarrassing admissions of personal errors of judgement in the first year, and his inability to anticipate, or empathise with, his clearly distressed chancellor during Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday.

The mood in the Labour party is bleak: in No 10 it is bleaker still, with widespread despair replacing the joy of just a few months ago. It’s difficult to know what remains intact of the Starmer project now that the left is back in the ascendant, and with the national finances in such a bad state.

Business, which Starmer and Rachel Reeves worked so hard to win over, is deserting the party. The richest and best minds are leaving the country in droves for places where they think their contributions will be better valued. The policy of imposing VAT on independent school fees, which Labour said would not harm the schools concerned but would improve education for all, is in trouble; the full extent of the damage may become apparent next year.

A change of prime minister is widely talked about across Westminster and in the country. But a change would not help. Another year or more would be lost during the transition, with progress stalling on the economy, public services, and Britain’s security in the world. There is no guarantee that any successor would perform better. Andy Burnham, perhaps, but he’s just been re-elected in Manchester.

No: sticking with an improved Starmer is the best hope. Vision, people and communication – all interlinked – are required if he is to come back in the autumn capable of holding the initiative and setting the agenda, rather than bumbling along as he has been.

History teaches us that all the best prime ministers had a clear purpose for the country. Starmer is still to articulate his story. A prime minister is captain of the ship of state. Unless he sets out where the ship is sailing to, confusion reins.

Better people are also needed to serve him. Successful prime ministers, without exception, had knowledgeable, strong and loyal teams around them. Yet Starmer came into No 10 with the most incomplete and inadequate team in 100 years.

The fault was entirely his own, and he needs now to correct it – starting with a chief of staff who knows how to be chief of staff. The incumbent, Morgan McSweeney, is brilliant at electoral strategy, but not at understanding Whitehall or at governing.

Finally, Starmer needs people who understand communications at a strategic and operational level to advise him. A mass injection of proven top talent from outside would reinvigorate and reimagine his premiership.

Here’s another thing about successful prime ministers: they learn on the job how to do it. But will he? Can he?