
Starmer marks first year with a clear crisis and blow to his leadership
Keir Starmer stepped out of his sleek black car, grasped the hand of his wife Vic, dressed in Labour red, and walked towards a jubilant crowd of Labour staffers, activists and MPs waving union jacks and cheering a Labour prime minister into Downing Street for the first time in 14 years.
Starmer and his wife took an age to get to the big black door, as they embraced those who had helped them win this election - their children hidden in the crowd to watch their dad walk into Number 10.
Keir Starmer, not the easiest public speaker, came to the podium and told the millions watching this moment the "country has voted decisively for change, for national renewal".
He spoke for the "weariness at the heat of the nation" and "the lack of trust" in our politicians as a "wound" that "can only be healed by actions not words". He added: "This will take a while but the work of change begins immediately."
That was a day in which this prime minister made history. His was a victory on a scale that comes around but one every few decades.
He won the largest majority in a quarter of a century and with it a massive opportunity to become one of the most consequential prime ministers of modern Britain - alongside the likes of Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair.
But within the win was a real challenge too.
Starmer's was a loveless landslide, won on a lower share of the vote than Blair in all of his three victories and 6 percentage points lower than the 40% Jeremy Corbyn secured in the 2017 general election. It was the lowest vote share secured for a single party in over 70 years. Support for Labour was as shallow as it was wide.
2:03
In many ways then, it was a landslide built on shaky foundations: low public support, deep mistrust of politicians, unhappiness with the state of public services, squeezed living standards and public finances in a fragile state after the huge cost of the pandemic and persistent anaemic growth.
Put another way, the fundamentals of this Labour government, whatever Keir Starmer did, or didn't do, were terrible. Blair came in on a new dawn. This Labour government, in many ways, inherited the scorched earth.
For the past year, I have followed Keir Starmer around wherever he goes. We have been to New York, Washington (twice), Germany (twice), Brazil, Samoa, Canada, Ukraine, the Netherlands and Brussels. I can't even reel off the places we've been to around the UK - but suffice to say we've gone to all the nations and regions.
What I have witnessed in the past year is a prime minister who works relentlessly hard. When we flew for 27 hours non-stop to Samoa last autumn to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) summit, every time I looked up at the plane, I saw a solitary PM, his headlight shining on his hair, working away as the rest of us slept or watched films.
He also seems almost entirely unflappable. He rarely expresses emotion. The only time I have seen a flash of anger was when I questioned him about accepting freebies in a conversation that ended up involving his family, and when Elon Musk attacked Jess Phillips.
10:50
I have also witnessed him being buffeted by events in a way that he would not have foreseen. The arrival of Donald Trump into the White House has sucked the prime minister into a whirlwind of foreign crises that has distracted him from domestic events.
When he said over the weekend, as a way of explanation not an excuse, that he had been caught up in other matters and taken his eye off the ball when it came to the difficulties of welfare reform, much of Westminster scoffed, but I didn't.
I had followed him around in the weeks leading up to that vote. We went from the G7 in Canada, to the Iran-Israel 12-day war, to the NATO summit in the Hague, as the prime minister dealt with, in turn, the grooming gangs inquiry decision, the US-UK trade deal, Donald Trump, de-escalation in the Middle East and a tricky G7 summit, the assisted dying vote, the Iran-Israel missile crisis.
He was taking so many phone calls on Sunday morning from Chequers, that he couldn't get back to London for COBRA [national emergency meeting] because he couldn't afford to not have a secure phone line for the hour-long drive back to Downing Street.
He travelled to NATO, launched the National Security Review and agreed to the defence alliance's commitment to spend 5% of GDP on defence by 2035. So when he came back from the Hague into a full-blown welfare rebellion, I did have some sympathy for him - he simply hadn't had the bandwidth to deal with the rebellion as it began to really gather steam.
Where I have less sympathy with the prime minister and his wider team is how they let it get to that point in the first place.
👉 Click here to listen to Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈
Keir Starmer wasn't able to manage the latter stages of the rebellion, but the decisions made months earlier set it up in all its glory, while Downing Street's refusal to heed the concerns of MPs gave it momentum to spiral into a full-blown crisis.
The whips gave warning after 120 MPs signed a letter complaining about the measures, the Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall had done the same, but Starmer and Reeves were, in the words of one minister, "absolutist".
"They assumed people complaining about stuff do it because they are weak, rather than because they are strong," said the minister, who added that following the climbdown, figures in Number 10 "just seemed completely without knowledge of the gravity of it".
That he marks his first anniversary with the humiliation of having to abandon his flagship welfare reforms or face defeat in the Commons - something that should be unfathomable in the first year of power with a majority that size - is disappointing.
To have got it that wrong, that quickly with your parliamentary party, is a clear blow to his authority and is potentially more chronic. I am not sure yet how he recovers.
2:58
Keir Starmer said he wanted to rule country first, party second, but finds himself pinned by a party refusing to accept his centrist approach. Now, ministers tell MPs that there will be a financial consequence of the government's decision to delay tightening the rules on claiming disability benefits beyond the end of 2026.
A shattered Rachel Reeves now has to find the £5bn she'd hoped to save another way. She will defend her fiscal rules, which leaves her the invidious choice of tax rises or spending cuts. Sit back and watch for the growing chorus of MPs that will argue Starmer needs to raise more taxes and pivot to the left.
That borrowing costs of UK debt spiked on Wednesday amid speculation that the chancellor might resign or be sacked, is a stark reminder that Rachel Reeves, who might be unpopular with MPs, is the markets' last line of defence against spending-hungry Labour MPs. The party might not like her fiscal rules, but the markets do.
The past week has set the tone now for the prime minister's second year in office. Those around him admit that the parliamentary party is going to be harder to govern. For all talk of hard choices, they have forced the PM to back down from what were cast as essential welfare cuts and will probably calculate that they can move him again if they apply enough pressure.
There is also the financial fall-out, with recent days setting the scene for what is now shaping up to be another definitive budget for a chancellor who now has to fill a multi-billion black hole in the public finances.
But I would argue that the prime minister has misjudged the tone as he marks that first year. Faced with a clear crisis and blow to his leadership, instead of tackling that head on the prime minister sought to ignore it and try to plough on, embarking on his long-planned launch of the 10-year NHS plan to mark his year in office, as if the chancellor's tears and massive Labour rebellions over the past 48 hours were mere trifles.
1:16
It was inevitable that this NHS launch would be overshadowed by the self-inflicted shambles over welfare and the chancellor's distress, given this was the first public appearance of both of them since it had all blown up.
But when I asked the prime minister to explain how it had gone so wrong on welfare and how he intended to rebuild your trust and authority in your party, he completely ignored my question. Instead, he launched into a long list of Labour's achievements in his first year: 4 million extra NHS appointments; free school meals to half a million more children; more free childcare; the biggest upgrade in employment rights for a generation; and the US, EU and India free trade deals.
1:03
I can understand the point he was making and his frustration that his achievements are being lost in the maelstrom of the political drama. But equally, this is politics, and he is the prime minister. This is his story to tell, and blowing up your welfare reform on the anniversary week of your government is not the way to do it.
For Starmer himself, he will do what I have seen him do before when he's been on the ropes, dig in, learn from the errors and try to come back stronger. I have heard him in recent days talk about how he has always been underestimated and then proved he can do it - he is approaching this first term with the same grit.
If you ask his team, they will tell you that the prime minister and this government is still suffering from the unending pessimism that has pervaded our national consciousness; the sense politics doesn't work for working people and the government is not on their side.
Starmer knows what he needs to do: restore the social contract, so if you work hard you should get on in life. The spending review and its massive capital investment, the industrial strategy and strategic defence review - three pieces of work dedicated to investment and job creation - are all geared to trying to rebuild the country and give people a brighter future.
But equally, government has been, admit insiders, harder than they thought as they grapple with multiple crises facing the country - be that public services, prisons, welfare.
It has also lacked direction. Sir Keir would do well to focus on following his Northern Star. I think he has one - to give working people a better life and ordinary people the chance to fulfil their potential.
But somehow, the prime minister is failing to articulate his mission, and he knows that. When I asked him at the G7 summit in Canada what his biggest mistake of the first year was, he told me: "We haven't always told our story as well as we should."
3:42
I go back to the Keir Starmer of July 5 2024. He came in on a landslide, he promised to change the country, he spoke of the lack of trust and the need to prove to the public that the government could make their lives better through actions not words.
In this second year, he is betting that the legislation he has passed and strategies he has launched will drive that process of change, and in doing so, build back belief.
But it is equally true that his task has become harder these past few weeks. He has spilled so much blood over welfare for so little gain, his first task is to reset the operation to better manage the party and rebuild support.
But bigger than that, he needs to find a way to not just tell his government's story but sell his government's story. He has four years left.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Powys County Times
27 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
Minister shrugs off ex-Labour MP's announcement of new political party
A senior minister has appeared to shrug off the announcement a former Labour MP plans to set up a new party alongside Jeremy Corbyn. Zarah Sultana, who had the Labour whip suspended last year, said on Thursday night she was quitting Sir Keir Starmer's party and would 'co-lead the founding of a new party' with the ex-Labour leader. Mr Corbyn is yet to comment on the announcement. On Friday morning, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said Ms Sultana had 'always taken a very different view to most people in the Government' on several issues, adding: 'That's for her to do so.' But during a series of broadcast interviews, Ms Cooper declined to be drawn on whether she was concerned the new party could pose a threat to Labour. Asked whether she was concerned, the Home Secretary told LBC: 'People have always had different views, and I just disagree with the views and the approaches they're taking.' In her announcement of a new political party, Ms Sultana accused the Labour Government of failing to improve people's lives, and claimed it 'wants to make disabled people suffer' in reference to ministers' proposals to reform welfare. Ms Cooper rejected the accusation, telling Sky News: 'I just strongly disagree with her.' The Home Secretary pointed to falling waiting times in the NHS, the announcement of additional neighbourhood police officers, extending free school meals and strengthening renters' rights as areas where the Government was acting. She said: 'These are real changes (that) have a real impact on people's lives.' Ms Sultana was one of seven MPs who had the Labour whip suspended last summer when they supported an amendment to the King's Speech which related to the two-child benefit cap. Four of the seven had the whip restored earlier this year but Ms Sultana was not among them. John McDonnell, another of the suspended MPs who has not had the whip restored, posted on X that he was 'dreadfully sorry' to see Ms Sultana quit the party. 'The people running Labour at the moment need to ask themselves why a young, articulate, talented, extremely dedicated socialist feels she now has no home in the Labour Party and has to leave,' he said. Mr Corbyn led Labour from 2015 to April 2020, stepping down after the party's loss at the 2019 general election. He was suspended from Labour in 2020 after he refused to fully accept the Equality and Human Rights Commission's findings that the party broke equality law when he was in charge, and said antisemitism had been 'dramatically overstated for political reasons'. Today, after 14 years, I'm resigning from the Labour Party. Jeremy Corbyn and I will co-lead the founding of a new party, with other Independent MPs, campaigners and activists across the country. Join us. The time is now. Sign up here to stay updated: — Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) July 3, 2025 He was blocked from standing for Labour at last year's general election and expelled in the spring of 2024 after announcing he would stand as an independent candidate in his Islington North constituency, which he won with a majority of more than 7,000. Last year, Mr Corbyn formed the Independent Alliance with other independent members of the Commons. Asked on ITV's Peston programme on Wednesday whether that group could turn into an official party, Mr Corbyn said that they have 'worked very hard and very well together' over the last year in Parliament. He added: 'There is a thirst for an alternative view to be put.' 'That grouping will come together, there will be an alternative,' he later said.


The Independent
28 minutes ago
- The Independent
Will Corbyn's new hard-left party prove to be Starmer's mission impossible?
Allies of Keir Starmer will be tempted to dismiss the announcement that Jeremy Corbyn is set to form a breakaway party including the other four pro-Palestinian MPs elected in last year's general election, the suspended Labour MP Zarah Sultana and about 200 councillors. For some Starmer aides, the formal split will usefully remind voters that Labour is in the centre ground, despite the damaging headlines about the humiliating climbdown forced by rebels over welfare cuts. After Corbyn's expulsion by Labour, Starmer won't mind another fight with the hard left. He needs to detach it from the much bigger, soft-left group at Labour's heart; the two groups joined forces to devastating effect in the rebellion against disability benefit cuts. The unnamed new party has been not confirmed by Corbyn, who seems irritated that Sultana jumped the gun by announcing she had resigned her Labour membership and would co-lead an alliance with Corbyn. It was a messy launch. 'Can a party split before it starts?' one Labour wag asked. However, Corbyn's new project could prove a headache for Starmer. It could win over 10 per cent of voters, reducing Labour's support by three points, according to More in Common. The new party would be in first place among 18- to 24-year-olds on 32 per cent. Some of its supporters will have already abandoned Labour and switched to the Greens or Liberal Democrats. But Corbyn could agree an electoral pact with the Greens to ensure they field candidates in different places. Labour will hope the Corbyn party will struggle to get lift off under our first past-the-post system. The left populists are unlikely to supplant Labour in the way Reform UK has overtaken the Conservatives. But the new party could give Starmer a headache next May by winning Labour seats in local authority elections in places such as London and Birmingham, during what already looks like a difficult set of elections for him. His and the government's unpopularity could see Labour lose control in the Welsh Parliament for the first time and fail to oust the SNP in the Scottish Parliament after the nationalists' 19 years in power. Worryingly for Starmer, there are mutterings at Westminster that disastrous results could spark a move by his MPs to oust him before the next general election. Traditionally, Labour doesn't depose its leaders like the Tories. But a change of leader can no longer be ruled out after the nightmarish end to Starmer's first year in power. The Corbyn party could draw money and members away from Labour, including donations from left-wing trade unions. Amid disenchantment with the government, Labour's membership has dropped from 348,000 at last year's election to about 309,000. (Under Corbyn, membership peaked at 460,000 in 2017). Labour HQ was told before the May local elections that grassroots morale was low after the government's decisions on winter fuel payments and welfare. Although some close Starmer allies will not lose sleep over left-wingers quitting Labour, the party needs all the foot soldiers it can muster. To make matters worse for Starmer, the soft left is mobilising against his top-down leadership and wants grassroots members given more influence. The Compass think tank is drawing up a 'guiding story' to end 'the sense of drift' under Starmer's ideology-free managerialism. Neal Lawson, its director, warns: 'If Labour doesn't clarify what kind of society it aims to bring about and fails to seriously develop a programme that lights the way to it, the populist right's version of change will prevail.' Compass's initial ideas, which won't be welcomed by Team Starmer, include wealth taxes, rent controls, price caps and the 'social ownership' of water and buses. With skilful targeting, the Corbyn party could unseat some Labour MPs at the next general election. Labour insiders are already worried that 'Gaza independents' could win between 20-30 seats, including the health secretary Wes Streeting's in Ilford North. 'Gaza is a real problem for us,' one Labour insider told me. The five independents who won Labour seats last year campaigned on issues like austerity, as well as the Middle East; such candidates will have more ammunition by the next election. Although Starmer will be more worried about the threat from Reform, the Corbyn party could result in a prime minister under real pressure on both flanks, as well as from Labour members and his newly-empowered MPs. All while wedded – for now, at least, thanks to the financial markets – to a weeping chancellor, widely seen as the architect of his first-year woes. Crucially, the existence of the Corbyn party could undermine the PM's plan to urge disaffected left-of-centre voters to hold their nose and stick with Labour to keep Nigel Farage out of Downing Street. Starmer has fought back before when his back was to the wall – but he will need superpowers to wriggle out of this one.


The Guardian
33 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Crying in the Commons: why are women's workplace tears a source of shame?
Rachel Reeves's tears this week triggered a fall in the pound and attracted widespread derision from political columnists, mostly male. 'What is wrong with Rachel Reeves?' the Telegraph asked. In an article headlined 'The meaning of the chancellor's tears', a New Statesman columnist told readers that Reeves's authority was 'beginning to melt away'. The Daily Mail spoke disdainfully of her 'waterworks'. But in the longer term the chancellor's display of distress may prove to have an unexpectedly positive legacy, helpfully normalising a still hugely stigmatised phenomenon – women's tears in the workplace. Until now, tearful outbursts at work have mostly been mired in shame, the source of acute embarrassment. This week's live broadcast of the chancellor's silent tears could help shift the taboo, highlighting a little-discussed truth: sometimes women cry at work, and it's no big deal. Reeves reflected on her own tears with a shrug a day later. 'People saw I was upset, but that was yesterday. Today's a new day and I'm just cracking on with the job,' she said on Thursday. She declined to explain what had prompted her distress, describing it simply as a personal issue and refusing to go into details. Within 24 hours the markets had bounced back with the assurances of the prime minister, Keir Starmer, that she would remain in her job for the long term. Clearly it is far from ideal to be filmed in tears during the week's most-watched exchanges in the House of Commons, but ministerial jobs are immensely tough. Some of Reeves's male predecessors have exhibited the strain of their roles in more extreme ways – while attracting less attention, because their behaviour is classed as routine and acceptable machismo. When Britain's former prime minister Gordon Brown was exhausted and under pressure he was known to be prone to volcanic eruptions. One biographer described how Brown would stab the seat of the ministerial Jaguar with his pen in fury. Bloomberg reported that a new aide was warned to watch out for 'flying Nokias' when he joined Brown's team (although a spokesperson for Brown said at the time that this was 'not an account that I recognise'). Reeves's tears were widely seen as a sign that she was losing control. Brown's fury was forgiven by many as just a regrettable quirk displayed by a leader under pressure. Research consistently confirms what we instinctively know – that women cry more frequently than men. So it stands to reason that as we see more women in senior leadership roles, the sight of a powerful woman in tears should become less remarkable. It would be odd to celebrate it, since it's an exhausting and often mortifying phenomenon, but Reeves's outburst may help it to be better understood as simply a different way of expressing professional frustration or responding to pressure. Polling conducted by YouGov in the UK revealed that 34% of men claim not to have cried at all in the previous year, compared with only 7% of women; 18% of women said they cried at least once a week, compared with only 4% of men. Behaviour varies between cultures, but this remains a broadly global phenomenon: a 2011 study of 5,715 participants from 37 countries found women were more prone to crying and were more likely to have cried recently. This week, Germany's former leader Angela Merkel revealed that she 'burst out crying from the pressure' during a meeting with the then US president, Barack Obama, on how to handle Greece's mounting debt crisis in 2015. Theresa May was on the brink of tears when she stepped down as the UK prime minister in May 2019, her voice cracking and lips wobbling as she stood outside Downing Street, telling assembled journalists that it had been the honour of her life 'to serve the country I love'. Margaret Thatcher was in tears when she was driven from Downing Street in 1990s. By contrast, David Cameron hummed his way back inside No 10 after his resignation speech in 2016. Obama wept occasionally when president but these were mostly dignified occasions, prompted by the memory of tragic events, such as the shooting of schoolchildren during a speech about gun control. His tears were not the unattractive and uncontrollable, messy and humiliating variety, but were mostly seen as commendable expressions of his humanity. Vladimir Putin appeared emotional a decade ago during a soft-rock song honouring the bravery of the Russian police force, but these too were a different kind of tears. Political behaviour in Britain has been slow to change, despite the rapidly evolving makeup of the Commons. In 2024, the UK saw the election of the highest number of female MPs ever recorded. There are now 264 women in the Commons, holding 40% of the 650 seats. Since the 1997 election of the Labour party saw the proportion of women double from 9% to 18%, there has been a steady rise – but the institution's combative culture has barely changed. 'We've had years of men shouting, scoffing, braying, even sleeping in this chamber, so we shouldn't overreact to a woman showing her frustration with one tear,' said Penny East, the chief executive of the Fawcett Society, a feminist campaigning charity. 'It shouldn't be interpreted as a sign that she's not up to her job. These criticisms feel riddled with sexism and stereotype.' Ask any female colleague, and they will probably reluctantly admit to having wrestled with the challenge of holding back tears at work, often prompted by professional frustration rather than sadness. I've done it, during a difficult conversation with an editor, raising my eyes to the ceiling and tilting my head back, hoping that gravity would somehow suck the tears back inside the ducts and that no one would notice. Women know it can be damaging professionally because crying remains categorised as a sign of incompetence and weakness, an unacceptable manifestation of stress. One accomplished acquaintance in a senior role was unfairly nicknamed Tiny Tears in private by her staff because occasionally she responded to challenging situations with involuntary tears. Her colleagues were less familiar with this manifestation of professional dissatisfaction than they might have been with a display of male anger. Another woman described crying on her third day at her new job as a chief executive of a large organisation. 'It wasn't live on the media, but it was in an open-plan office and I was surrounded by senior and junior staff. I'm not remotely comparing my job to the job of the chancellor, but there was a huge burden of responsibility and I was having to take difficult decisions,' she said. She was embarrassed by her own tears because she could see how uncomfortable it made her team. 'But I didn't see it as a loss of control. We shouldn't assume that displays of emotions represent a loss of control over ability to do your job.' She thinks, however, the episode may unexpectedly have helped her win colleagues' respect. 'They could see I really cared about what we were there to do.' Although there is no difference in the amount male and female babies cry, women cry more frequently than men because of a complex mix of social conditioning and biology. Ad Vingerhoets, a professor of clinical psychology at Tilburg University in the Netherlands, has studied the science of tears, and notes that testosterone acts as a 'brake' on the crying response. Sophie Scott, a professor of cognitive neuroscience at University College London, who specialises in analysing how emotions are expressed through laughter and tears, said: 'How we experience and express our emotions is influenced by our biology and by how we've grown up.' Scott made a distinction between tears produced as a result of sadness and tears triggered by anger, noting that these tears of frustration and fury seemed to be more frequently something experienced by women. 'If you're angry and you feel you can't do something about it, there's a helpless, frustrated feeling that pushes you to tears,' she said. Women seemed to find themselves more frequently fighting tears of frustration than men, Scott said, adding that this might be because 'angry and more aggressive responses are more acceptable in men'. Unusually, Reeves's misery was caught playing out over the 30-minute duration of the prime minister's question time session, allowing viewers a rare and uncomfortable view of someone attempting and failing to stem the flow, lips twitching and turning downwards. 'A big difference between my job and many of your viewers' is that when I'm having a tough day it's on the telly, and most people don't have to deal with that,' Reeves told the BBC. Scott said many forms of tears were hard to control, adding: 'Crying is a very truthful signal. Once it gets hold of you, it's very hard to stop it. It's involuntary.' Rosie Campbell, a professor of politics at King's College London, said she was staggered by the negativity triggered by Reeves's tears. 'In our society, women are more likely to cry. That doesn't make them worse leaders,' she said. 'I don't want to see politicians crying in the chamber every day, but if it happens a couple of times in a parliamentary career, that should be no big deal. 'I'm more worried about emotionally repressed leaders than about someone who realises that the financial security of the nation is in their hands and they feel the weight of that.'