For a brief moment, the Tories’ battered attack machine roared to life. “The King’s speech was the most left-wing in years,” the briefing declared. “Nationalisation, new powers for trade unions, abolition of hereditary peers.”
The Financial Times followed suit. Sir Keir Starmer was photographed wearing a Che Guevara beret, above an article announcing “Starmer’s never-ending insurrection”. The prime minister was ready to embrace his “inner radicalism”, he claimed.
Well, if so, this radicalism will reveal itself through its political audacity, rather than through the channeling of any grand socialist ideology.
For the truth is that the new Prime Minister’s first programme for government is one of the most conservative – and conservative – ever unveiled by a Labour administration.
“Our strategy is simple,” one Starmer adviser told me. “We’re going to spend the next 12 months parking our tanks right in the middle of the Tory lawn.”
If you want to know what the first wave of Starmerism is really about, focus on what he and his ministers actually say and do.
The slightly desperate remark that “this is the most left-wing it has been in years” can be quickly dismissed.
The government’s Great British Railways idea is in fact a formalisation of Boris Johnson’s policy of creeping renationalisation. The radical workers’ rights agenda advocated by Angela Rayner and her allies has been significantly watered down by Rachel Reeves. And the planned reforms to the House of Lords – which once included abolition and replacement with an elected second chamber – have been similarly nullified.
If you want to know what the first wave of Starmerism is really about, it is best to ignore the speeches and the hype. Focus instead on what he and his ministers are actually saying and doing.
This first substantial political announcement in the King’s speech makes no reference to the people’s flags or the blood of the martyrs of the Labour movement.
It simply said: “Stability will be the cornerstone of my government’s economic policy and every decision will be in accordance with its budgetary rules.”
“It will legislate to ensure that all major changes to tax and spending are subject to independent assessment by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).”
Fiscal responsibility, the guiding principle of every successful Conservative administration since the war, is now the watchword of the Labour Party.
And the money doesn’t stop there. A crime bill. Another to strengthen the country’s borders. New anti-terrorism measures. A radical reform programme for the NHS. A new champion for the armed forces. An unwavering commitment to NATO. A specific recommitment to Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent.
Che Guevara? All this would have made Margaret Thatcher purr with approval.
In fact, if you look at Starmer’s strategy, it’s not so much about parking his tanks on the Tory lawn as it is about sending drones into the homes of former Tory ministers and pointing a camera through their windows.
As one Starmer adviser noted: “We’re going to take their good ideas and show that we’re the government that can actually deliver them. For example, our planning reform policy was Michael Gove’s big project, but he couldn’t push it through. We will.”
Labour’s legislative programme would have had Mrs Thatcher purring with approval
An extension of the OBR, George Osborne’s idea. An extension of the powers of elected regional and municipal mayors, introduced by David Cameron. An Industrial Strategy Council, tasked with finally implementing Boris’s promise.
Rishi Sunak used his first and last speech at the party conference to completely destroy his party’s record in government. Starmer intends to sort through the debris, find the bits he thinks will work and recycle them.
For two reasons. First, he believes he has learned from the reform of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions that a gradual transformation, rather than a total revolution, is the most practical way to bring about change.
He also believes that the image of a Britain served by a calm and pragmatic prime minister, rather than an ideologue, will help consolidate his premiership.
But there is also an element of opportunism underlying Starmer’s plan.
He is preparing to occupy swathes of political space once held by conservatives because he believes it will not involve fighting for them.
As one Labour minister told me: “The Tories are going to have to move to the right. They are going to have to try to deal with reform rather than spending their time attacking us. And that gives us a huge opportunity.”
Labour strategists believe that the impending fight to the death between the next Conservative leader and Nigel Farage will benefit them in several ways. It will allow them to move closer to the centre, where they believe all elections are won. And, crucially, it will allow them to do so without unduly upsetting their liberal base.
Take for example the Labour Party’s position on cross-Channel migrants. In Gordon Brown’s last speech as Queen, immigration was not mentioned.
The subject was taboo, and it was only broken by his disastrous encounter with voter Gillian Duffy, whom he was later heard to call a “bigot”.
Some media outlets have tried to portray Starmer as a Che Guevara-type radical.
Yet last week Starmer put a pledge to strengthen Britain’s borders and establish a new border security task force at the heart of his manifesto.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper then announced the first direct repatriation of asylum seekers to France by small boats operated by the British Border Police. Liberal opinion then welcomed the more “benevolent” approach of the ministers.
This is how Starmer intends to proceed. He will exercise caution, from time to time, to please his metropolitan base. A wind farm here, a bus regulation there. But his initial programme will be guided by caution rather than radicalism.
The reality is that people – on both the left and the right – who were hoping Starmer would start the first day by shouting gleefully from the steps of 10 Downing Street “You’re fooled! We’re the masters now!!!!!” are going to be disappointed.
In 1997, Tony Blair declared: “We were elected as New Labour and we will govern as New Labour.” In his first fortnight in office, Starmer made a similar promise. “We were elected as cautious, progressive Labour and we will govern as cautious, progressive Labour.”
Over the past year, it has become common to hear Conservative supporters and even MPs bemoan Sunak’s lack of vision and direction. “Why can’t we have a proper Conservative prime minister?” they have complained.
They can relax, Britain now has one.
