First steps and missteps
Keir Starmer’s Government is doing what is popular with the public in some ways, but not in others
It says a lot about the nature of Labour’s difficult start to Government, and the warp speed of media and political commentary these days, that Prime Minister Keir Starmer has, in his short tenure, already been given so many nicknames including Two Tier Keir, Free Gear Keir and Sir Unclear Starmer. It would be easy to write these off as the product of a cynical, critical media (and a name that lends itself easily to rhyme), but there are some important issues at play.
People are gloomy too
Before his party conference speech last week, there was much journalistic talk of the Government’s message containing too much doom and gloom, that constant references to the dire fiscal and economic legacy, lots of talk about “awful”, “painful” decisions to come and of a “broken NHS” were having the effect of talking Britain down.
There have been signs this was impacting consumers. GfK’s Consumer Confidence Barometer and the Ipsos Economic Optimism Index (EOI) both showed post-election dips. The movement in EOI bucked the typical trend of a positive bounce around an election, particularly when a new government takes charge.
And while there has been an 18-point jump since the election in optimism that the NHS will improve, it was as at a very low ebb before the election when just 16% thought things would get better. Another Ipsos survey found eight in ten Britons, 82%, considering the NHS to be overstretched — the highest percentage among 31 countries surveyed.
Change
The sobering tone struck by the incoming Government has been very different to that of Boris Johnson on the steps of №10 Downing Street after taking office in 2019. Keen to draw a line under Brexit and its scarring effect on the British psyche, Johnson criticised the “doubters, the doomsters, the gloomsters” who were “going to get it wrong again”.
Starmer would probably relish any sort of comparison with Johnson. Labour’s pitch during and since the election has been one of unfussy, undemonstrative competence over “chaos” and “performance”. His mantra has consistently been about Labour being “in the service of people”, “levelling” with them about the state of things, and in touch with the lived reality.
The Labour government is giving people what they think the country needs, or at least trying. For example, Ipsos polls show the public tending towards a view that government is poor at planning for the long-term. A survey for Evidence Week in April found Britons more critical of governments’ willingness to set the disadvantages of their policies to the public than their advantages.
Starmer’s conference speech talked to both these points:
“…If we want cheaper electricity, we need new pylons overground otherwise the burden on taxpayers is too much. If we want home ownership to be a credible aspiration for our children, then every community has a duty to contribute to that purpose. If we want to tackle illegal migration seriously, we can’t pretend there’s a magical process that allows you to return people here unlawfully without accepting that process will also grant some people asylum.”
This is an important step towards acknowledgement of the real, messy nature of politics, of the necessity of trade-offs and compromise, of not being able to have it all, all the time. Bravely, Labour has rejected any notion of a ‘magic money tree’ or a fantasy policy immune from downsides. To use Eric Berne’s framework, this ought to make for a healthier, adult-to-adult basis for policymaking.
(Un)popularity contest
The public also think that politicians pay too little attention to public opinion when making decisions, a sentiment that has increased in recent years. Starmer is resolute; when asked by the BBC’s Chris Mason if an Ipsos poll revealing his unpopularity gave him pause for thought, he answered a straight no.
That same poll found the public split on whether the Labour government is doing a better or worse job than the previous Conservative government (a very low bar). Half (50%) of Britons say they are disappointed by what Labour have done in government so far — including a quarter (26%) of Labour voters.
Starmer’s position echoes something Tony Blair has said recently about leadership and is surely right; “tough decisions are unpopular…I will be judged at the next election on whether I have delivered”. It is true — there is not an election tomorrow, not even next year.
Starmer has talked about repairing trust in politics. This won’t be instant and will take time. Reflecting this, there has apparently been talk about a future Nike-style swoosh shape in public popularity.
But the current causes and impact of a level of dissatisfaction with the Prime Minister — worse than any of his predecessors since the 1990s except for Liz Truss — should be a concern (this is even more remarkable given several recent Conservative PMs were selected by their party without a popular mandate).
This is because it will be even harder to deliver things if working against the grain of public opinion. And where will majority opinion be next if the Budget strikes the wrong chord in October, if there is a U-turn on election pledges, or people notice that fiscal rules have been changed?
Why, oh, why?
One of the criticisms of suggested reforms to means test the winter fuel allowance is that the justification has been, at best, flimsy. There are two elements to this. First, the policy involves cuts which are counter-cultural as the public is resolutely against austerity and cuts and has been for some time. This was recognised by Rachel Reeves in her conference speech as she promised “no return to austerity” while Keir Starmer talked about crackdowns on benefits cheats.
Second, the justification of “balancing the books” rings hollow. For years, Britons lived through a period of subtraction by the State (until the pandemic), and instead have wanted addition. The last British Social Attitudes Survey found public expectations of government responsibilities are at record highs and polls continue to show appetite for tax rises to improve public services.
Assertions that “we can’t spend what we haven’t got” and commitments to grow GDP respectively risk a kind of pre-emptive loss aversion or are simply too abstract (some segments of the population don’t seem to want growth anyway). Intergenerational inequity may have been a stronger justification.
Over there, over here?
These are very early days and Labour is playing the long game. Their strategy does meet public opinion where it is at — downbeat and with low expectations — and seeks to remedy problems in politics as seen by the public.
But it also isn’t yet providing a compelling answer to the crucial ‘why?’, ‘what’s it all for?’ questions vital to holding everything together. Labour needs some glue.
Starmer made a start by linking the otherwise wonkish reform of the planning process with home ownership but what links this with the National Wealth Fund, the creation of Skills England and the rescue plan for the NHS? Yes, delivery matters, but marketing has a sweet spot involving assertion as well as demonstration.
His party used ‘change’ during the election campaign but in Government the story must be about the purpose of the change to come; economic growth in the service of the people, something that talks to aspiration, fairness and identity, rooted in public opinion. This would build on Rachel Reeves’ previous narrative about ‘Securonomics’.
Could the U.S. be a source of help? Have the Democrats’ strategists shown the way?
“…Vice President Harris and Governor Walz will create an Opportunity Economy where everyone has a chance to compete and a chance to succeed — from buying a home to starting a business and building wealth. They will… remove barriers to opportunity, revitalize communities, create jobs, grow our economy, and propel our industries into the future — in rural areas, small towns, suburbs, and big cities.”
