
As Starmer's first year ends in crisis, now comes a bigger battle
By the time polls closed at 10pm on 4 July 2024, the Labour Party knew they were likely to return to government - even if they could not quite bring themselves to believe it.For Sir Keir Starmer, reminiscing 10 months later in an interview with me, it was an "incredible moment". Instantly, he said, he was "conscious of the sense of responsibility". And yes, he confessed, a little annoyed that his landslide victory was not quite as big as Sir Tony Blair's had been in 1997."I'm hugely competitive," the prime minister said. "Whether it's on the football pitch, whether it is in politics or any other aspect of life."Sir Keir watched the exit poll with a small group of advisers as well as his wife, Victoria, and his two teenaged children. Even in that moment of unsurpassable accomplishment, this deeply private prime minister was caught between the jubilation of his aides and the more complex reaction of his children, who knew their lives were about to change forever.Looking back, the prime minister said, he would tell himself: "Don't watch it with your family - because it did have a big impact on my family, and I could see that in my children."
It's important to remember how sunny the mood in the Labour Party was at that moment - because the weather then turned stormy with remarkable speed.As the prime minister marks a year in office next week - which he will spend grappling with crises at home and abroad - British politics finds itself at an inflection point, where none of the old rules can be taken for granted.So, why exactly was Sir Keir's political honeymoon so short-lived? And can he turn things around?
Where Sir Keir's difficulties began
Many members of the new cabinet had never been to Downing Street until they walked up to the famous black door on 5 July to be appointed. Why would they have been? The 14 turbulent years of opposition for the Labour Party meant that few had any experience of government.This was a deficiency of which Sir Keir and his team were acutely aware.As the leader of the opposition, he had spent significant time in 'Privy Council' - that's to say, confidential, meetings with civil servants to understand what was happening in Ukraine and the Middle East.
He also sought knowledge from the White House. Jake Sullivan, then US President Joe Biden's National Security Adviser, told me that he spoke to the future prime minister "every couple of months" to help him "make sense of what was happening"."I shared with him our perspective on events in the Middle East, as well as in Ukraine and in other parts of the world," says Sullivan. "I thought he asked trenchant, focused, sharp questions. I thought he was on point."I thought he got to the heart of the matter, the larger issue of where all of these things were going and what was driving them. I was impressed with him."
Domestic preparations were not as smooth. For some, especially on the left of the Labour Party, this government's difficulties began with an over-cautious election campaign. Sharon Graham, the general secretary of the trade union Unite, told me that "everyday people [were] looking for change with a big C. They were not looking for managerialism".It's a criticism with which Pat McFadden, a senior cabinet minister, having run the campaign, is wearily familiar. "We had tried other strategies to varying degrees in 2015, 2017, 2019, many other campaigns previously - and they'd lost."I had one job. To win."
Breaking away from Corbynism
Having made his name as a prominent member of Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet, Sir Keir won the party leadership in 2020 offering Labour members a kind of Corbynism without Corbyn. But before long he broke decisively with his predecessor.In the campaign this meant not a long list of promises, but a careful approach. Reassurance was the order of the day: at the campaign's heart, a focus on what Labour wouldn't do: no increase in income tax, national insurance or VAT.
Yet a big part of preparing for government was not just the question of what this government would do, but how it would drive the government system.For that, Sir Keir turned to Sue Gray.Having led the Partygate investigation into Boris Johnson, Gray was already unusually high-profile for an impartial civil servant. Her close colleagues were stunned when in 2023 she agreed to take up a party political role as Sir Keir's chief of staff."It was a source of enormous controversy within the civil service," says Simon Case, who until a few months ago as cabinet secretary was head of the civil service.Sue Gray's task was to use her decades of experience of the Whitehall machine to bring order to Sir Keir's longstanding team.She started work in September 2023, and the grumblings about her work began to reach me weeks, or perhaps even days, later. Those in the team she joined had expected her to bring organisational clarity. Tensions came when she involved herself in political questions too.
Gray also deliberately re-prioritised the voices of elected politicians in the shadow cabinet over unelected advisers.Questions about what exactly her role should be were never quite resolved, in part because Rishi Sunak called the general election sooner than Labour had expected.Gray spent the campaign in a separate office from the main team, working with a small group on plans for the early days in government. Yet those back in Labour HQ fretted that, from what little they gleaned, that work was inadequate.A few days before the election those rumours reached me. I WhatsApped a confidant of Sir Keir to ask what they had heard of the preparation for government."Don't ask," came the reply. "I am too worried to discuss it."
A lack of decisive direction
What is unquestionable is that any prime minister would have struggled with the backdrop Sir Keir inherited.Simon Case described to me how, on 5 July just after Sir Keir had made his first speech on the steps of No 10, he had thwacked a sleepless new prime minister with "the heavy mallet of reality"."I don't think there are many incoming prime ministers who'd faced such challenging circumstances," he said, referring to both the country's economic situation and wars around the world.The King's Speech on 17 July unveiled a substantial programme, making good on manifesto promises: rail nationalisation, planning reform, clean energy investment. But those hoping for a rabbit out of the hat, a defining surprise, were disappointed.
In so many crucial areas — social care, child poverty, industrial strategy — the government's instinct was to launch reviews and consultations, rather than to declare a decisive direction.As cabinet secretary, Case could see what was happening — or not happening — across the whole of government. "There were some elements where not enough thinking had been done," he said. "There were areas where, sitting in the centre of government, early in a new regime, the prime minister and his team, including me as his sort of core team, knew what we wanted to do, but we weren't communicating that effectively across all of government."Not just communication within government: for us journalists there were days in that early period where it was utterly unclear what this new government wanted its story to be.That made those early announcements, which did come, stand out even more: none more so than Chancellor Rachel Reeves's announcement on 29 July that she would means-test the winter fuel payment.It came in a speech primarily about the government's parlous economic inheritance. That is not what it is remembered for.
Some in government admit that they expected a positive response to Reeves's radical frankness about what the government could and could not afford to do. Yet it sat in isolation - a symbol of this new government's economic priorities, with the Budget still three months away.Louise Haigh, then the transport secretary, remembered: "It came so early and it hung on its own as such a defining policy for so long that in so many voters' minds now, that is the first thing they think about when they think about this Labour government and what it wants to do and the kinds of decisions it wants to make."The policy lasted precisely one winter. Sir Keir and his chancellor have argued in recent weeks that they were able to change course because of a stabilising economy.McFadden was more direct about the U-turn. "If I'm being honest, I think the reaction to it since the decision was announced was probably stronger than we thought," he admits.
'Two-tier Keir' and his first UK crisis
At the same time the chancellor stood up to announce the winter fuel cuts, news was unfolding of a horrific attack in Southport.Misinformation about who had carried out the attack fuelled the first mass riots in this country since 2011, when Sir Keir had been the director of public prosecutions. Given the nature of the crisis, the prime minister was well placed to respond."As a first crisis, it was dealing with a bit of the machinery of government that he instinctively understood - policing, courts, prisons," Case says.
Sir Keir's response was practical and pragmatic — making the judicial system flow faster meant that by mid-August at least 200 rioters had already been sentenced, most jailed with an average term of two years.But in a way that was not quite clear at the time, the riots spawned what has become one of the defining attacks on the prime minister from the right: that of 'two-tier Keir'. The idea that some rioters were treated more harshly than other kinds of protesters had been morphed over time into a broader accusation about who and what the prime minister stood for.Sir Keir had cancelled his family holiday to deal with the riots. Exhausted, he ended the summer dealing with questions about his personal integrity in what became known as 'freebiegate'.
Most of the gifts for which he was being criticised - clothing, glasses, concert tickets - had been accepted before the election but Sir Keir was prime minister now. Case told me there was a "naivety" about the greater scrutiny that came with leading the country.Perhaps more than that, there was a naivety in No 10 about how Sir Keir was seen. Here was a man elected in large part because of a crisis of trust in politics. He had presented himself as different.Telling voters that he had followed the rules was to miss the point — they thought the rules themselves were bust.
The political price of 'dispensing with' Gray
By the winter of 2024, the sense of a government failing to get a grip of itself or a handle on the public mood, had grown. A chorus of off-the-record criticism, much of it strikingly personal, threatened to overwhelm the government.There were personal ambitions and tensions at play, but more and more insiders - some of them fans of Gray initially - were telling me that the way in which Sir Keir's chief of staff was running government was structurally flawed, with the system simply not working properly.Gray announced in early October that she had resigned because she risked becoming a "distraction". In reality, Sir Keir had sacked her after some of his closest aides warned him he risked a mutiny if he did not.Sue Gray was approached both for an interview and for her response to her critics but declined.
To the end she retained some supporters in the cabinet including Louise Haigh. "I felt desperately sorry for her," she says."It was just a really, really cruel way to treat someone who'd already been so traduced by the Tories - and then [was] traduced by our side as well."Sir Keir appointed Gray. He empowered Gray. And he dispensed with Gray. This was the prime minister correcting his own mistakes - an episode which came at a high political price.
A bridge on the world stage
Yet on the world stage the prime minister continued to thrive, winning praise across political divides in the UK and abroad.Jake Sullivan, Biden's adviser, was impressed by Sir Keir's handling of US President Donald Trump, describing the Oval Office meeting where the prime minister brandished an invitation from the King as "the best I've seen in terms of a leader in these early weeks going to sit down with the current president".It's an irony that it is Sir Keir, who made his reputation trying to thwart Brexit, who has found for the UK its most defined diplomatic role of the post-Brexit era — close to the US, closer than before to Europe, at the fore of the pro-Ukraine alliance, striking trade deals with India and others.
And it has provided him with something more elusive too: a story — a narrative of a confident, pragmatic leader stepping up on the world stage, acting as a bridge between other countries in fraught times.The risk, brought into sharp relief during the Israel-Iran conflict in recent days, is that Trump is too unpredictable for such a role to be a stable one.The international arena has sharpened Sir Keir's choices domestically as well. Even while making welfare cuts that have displeased so many in his party, the prime minister has a clearer and more joined-up argument about prioritising security in all its forms: through work, through economic prudence, through defence of the realm.And yet, for plenty of voters Sir Keir has found definition to his government's direction too late. Labour's poor performance last month in the local elections plus defeat at the Runcorn and Helsby by-election were a blow to Sir Keir and his team.
It's far from unheard of for a governing party to lose a by-election, but to lose it to Reform UK on the same night that Nigel Farage's party hoovered up councils across England made this a distinctively new political moment.Two days afterwards, Paul Ovenden, Sir Keir's strategy director, circulated a memo to Downing Street aides, which I've obtained.It called for a "relentless focus on the new centre ground in British politics".The crucial swing voters, Ovenden wrote, "are the middle-age, working class, economically squeezed voters that we persuaded in the 2024 election campaign. Many of them voted for us in 2024 thinking we would fix the cost of living, fix the NHS, and reduce migration… we need to become more ruthless in pursuing those outcomes".For more than 100 of Starmer's own MPs, including many of those elected for the first time in that landslide a year ago, the main priority was ruthlessly dismantling the government's welfare reforms - plunging the prime minister as he approaches his first anniversary into his gravest political crisis yet. The stakes were beyond high. For the prime minister to have faced defeat on this so soon after the winter fuel reversal raises questions about his ability to get his way on plenty else besides.So, if this first year has done anything, it has clarified the stakes.This is not just a prime minister and a Labour Party hoping to win a second term. They are trying to prove to a tetchy and volatile country that not only do they get their frustration with politics, but that they can fix it too. None of that will be possible when profound policy disagreements are on public display.Starmer's Stormy Year: A year on from the landslide election win, the BBC's Henry Zeffman talks to insiders about the challenges Labour has faced in government (BBC Radio 4, from 30 June 2025)Top picture credit: PA and Getty Images
BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.
Hashtags

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


The Independent
10 minutes ago
- The Independent
I thought I knew what Keir Starmer believed – now, it's anyone's guess
Harriet Harman once described a politician's waking nightmare. As social security secretary in the New Labour government, she was delivering her first speech to the party conference in October 1997. 'All these unfamiliar words started coming up on the autocue. I couldn't go back to my notes, and just had to carry on. I realised that Gordon Brown had made the changes to delete all my references to spending plans.' Something similar happened to Keir Starmer in May, as he read a speech on immigration from the prompter in Downing Street. He told Tom Baldwin, his biographer, in an interview published on Friday, that when the unfamiliar phrase 'an island of strangers' scrolled up on the glass screens, he just read it out. 'I wouldn't have used those words if I had known they were, or even would be interpreted as an echo of [Enoch] Powell,' he told Baldwin. 'I had no idea – and my speechwriters didn't know either.' Starmer had arrived back from a three-day trip to Ukraine the night before, and learned that morning that his former home in Kentish Town had been firebombed in the small hours. His sister-in-law was living there and called the fire brigade: no one was hurt, but Starmer was 'really shaken up'. He said, 'It's fair to say I wasn't in the best state to make a big speech,' and that he almost cancelled it. Baldwin wrote: 'Emphasising he is not using the firebomb attack as an excuse and doesn't blame his advisers or anyone else except himself for these mistakes, Starmer says he should have read through the speech properly and 'held it up to the light a bit more'.' Now, a month and a half later, he said: 'That particular phrase – no – it wasn't right. I'll give you the honest truth: I deeply regret using it.' Both parts of his confession to Baldwin were unwise in the extreme. It was unwise to admit that he doesn't always read his speeches before he delivers them – or that he doesn't always read them 'properly', which is the same thing. The pressures on a prime minister's time are intense, and any prime minister has to rely on speechwriters they can trust to produce most of the words that have to be pumped out. But a politician should never admit that their words are not their own, or blame their speechwriters while insisting that they are not blaming them. Especially not one, such as Starmer, who already has a reputation for being the puppet of Morgan McSweeney, his chief of staff, who saw him as the figurehead for his bid to take the Labour Party back from the Corbynites five years ago. But this confession was particularly unwise because it suggests that Starmer's critics were right to detect the echo of Powell's 'rivers of blood' speech in the prime minister's words. The message of the speech was entirely different. Powell complained that the effect of immigration was that the existing population 'found themselves made strangers in their own country'. Starmer's speechwriters, by contrast, were making the point that 'fair rules' hold a country together. 'In a diverse nation like ours – and I celebrate that – these rules become even more important. Without them, we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together.' The sentiment is worthy and uncontroversial, even if the phrasing is a bit poetic. But the meaning was completely clear in the next paragraph: 'So when you have an immigration system that seems almost designed to permit abuse … you're actually contributing to the forces that are slowly pulling our country apart.' I don't know who would actually disagree with that – apart from Enoch Powell, who didn't want any immigration at all. Some of Starmer's critics have also seized on his comment – in the foreword to the immigration white paper, so he presumably did hold these words 'up to the light' – that the 'damage done to our country' by the Conservative 'experiment in open borders' is 'incalculable'. But again, it is hard to disagree: the writer of Starmer's foreword is not saying that immigration is damaging, but that quadrupling it when you promised to reduce it is. Even those who think the UK can easily absorb a net immigration of 906,000 in a 12-month period have to accept that the Tory failure to control immigration has, as the foreword's author said, opened a wound in 'trust in politics'. So Starmer should have defended 'his' words to Baldwin. The message was the right message: that there should be fair rules for immigration, and that immigration has been too high. Now we just do not know what the prime minister thinks. Is the real Starmer the liberal lefty human rights lawyer who implied to Baldwin that he thinks that any attempt to control immigration is Powellism? Or is it the man reading McSweeney's words off the autocue, saying, as he did just before he got to the 'island of strangers' paragraph: 'I know, on a day like today, people who like politics will try to make this all about politics, about this or that strategy, targeting these voters, responding to that party. No. I am doing this because it is right, because it is fair, and because it is what I believe in.' What does he believe in? I thought I knew, but now that he has given that self-pitying interview to his biographer, I am not so sure.


The Sun
11 minutes ago
- The Sun
Kneecap rapper wears Palestine Action ‘terror group' T-shirt ahead of controversial Glasto set that BBC WON'T show live
CONTROVERSIAL hip hop group Kneecap have shared an image of one of its members wearing a "We Are All Palestine Action" ahead of their Glastonbury set. JJ O Dochartaigh - who often wears a balaclava in public - was seen in the snap wearing the top on X, with the caption reading: "1 hour to go..." 1 They are due to perform at 4pm on the West Holts stage. It comes after the BBC confirmed it will not be broadcasting the Irish trio's performance live following Sir Keir Starmer saying they should be banned from appearing altogether. Festival bosses, meanwhile, have already warned part of the grounds could be locked down during the group's performance this afternoon due to crowd surge concerns. Frontman Liam Og O hAnnaidh was charged under the Terrorism Act after allegedly displaying a flag in support of proscribed terrorist group Hezbollah while saying "up Hamas, up Hezbollah" during a gig in November in Kentish Town, north London. A BBC spokesperson said: 'As the broadcast partner, the BBC is bringing audiences extensive music coverage from Glastonbury, with artists booked by the festival organisers. "Whilst the BBC doesn't ban artists, our plans ensure that our programming meets our editorial guidelines. "We don't always live stream every act from the main stages and look to make an on-demand version of Kneecap's performance available on our digital platforms, alongside more than 90 other sets." The band themselves addressed a post on X to "a chairde Gael" - which means "Gaelic friends" in which they said they'd been contacted by the "propaganda wing of the regime". The post added: "They WILL put our set from Glastonbury today on the I-player later this evening for your viewing pleasure. "The crowd expected today is far greater than West Holts capacity so you'll need to be very early to catch us EARLY". A festival statement released today warns: "Kneecap will draw a large audience for their 4pm West Holts show. "If you're not planning to see them, please plan alternative routes around that area. "If you do plan to attend, listen to stewards, and please have some other entertainment options in mind in case the field reaches capacity and we need to close it as part of our crowd planning measures." Earlier this month the rapper - who performs under the stage name Mo Chara - and bandmates Naoise O Caireallain and O Dochartaigh were mobbed by hundreds of fans outside Westminster Magistrates' Court. He was released on unconditional bail - and is due at the same court on August 20 for the next hearing. The group's much-anticipated appearance at Glastonbury has been criticised by PM Sir Keir Starmer and Tory leader Kemi Badenoch. Mr Starmer said this week it is "not appropriate" for the group to perform at the festival, which started on Thursday. Asked by The Sun on Sunday if he thinks Kneecap should play, the PM said: 'No I don't. 'I think we need to come down really clearly on this. I won't say too much, because there's a court case on, but I don't think that's appropriate.' Ms Badenoch also said the BBC "should not be showing" the band's set in a post on social media. Her post said: "The BBC should not be showing Kneecap propaganda. "One Kneecap band member is currently on bail, charged under the Terrorism Act. "As a publicly funded platform, the BBC should not be rewarding extremism." The band are not currently listed for live broadcast. Avon and Somerset Police said: "Ticket-holders can once again expect to see uniformed officers on site at Glastonbury Festival 24/7 throughout the festival as part of our extensive policing operation ensuring it is safe for everyone attending, as well as those who live nearby." In response to the charge, Kneecap said in a post: '14,000 babies are about to die of starvation in Gaza, with food sent by the world sitting on the other side of a wall, and once again the British establishment is focused on us... 'Instead of defending innocent people, or the principles of international law they claim to uphold, the powerful in Britain have abetted slaughter and famine in Gaza, just as they did in Ireland for centuries. Then, like now, they claim justification. 'The IDF units they arm and fly spy plane missions for are the real terrorists, the whole world can see it.' Hezbollah - founded in 1982 - is an Iran-backed Shiite militia. The Lebanese terrorist organisation voiced support for the Hamas attacks on Israel on October 7 2023 before launching guided rockets and artillery shells at Israeli-occupied positions the following day. Israel has retaliated with strikes on Gaza - and the conflict remains ongoing, with thousands of people, including civilian children, killed. Kneecap has said they "do not, and have never, supported Hamas or Hezbollah", condemned all attacks on civilians, and alleged footage was "deliberately taken out of all context" as part of a "coordinated smear campaign" over their criticism of "the ongoing genocide against the Palestinian people".


Telegraph
12 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Our welfare system needs reform, not arbitrary cuts
As the smoke settles from yet another astonishing tyre-screeching U-turn by Kier Starmer on his welfare proposals, the stark reality is that instead of significant savings, we will all now face an extra tax bill of £3bn in the autumn. This U-turn isn't surprising to me because their proposal was a classic panicky short-term Treasury driven cut but in no way genuine reform. I even doubt that the savings would in the longer term have materialised. This is because I believe they were going at it the wrong way. The Covid lockdowns blasted a hole in our welfare system. Since 2020, the number of households where no one has ever worked has doubled. Economic inactivity due to long-term sickness has risen by 800,000. And taxpayers today are shelling out an extra £30 billion every year on sickness and disability benefits, on top of an already bulging bill. Lockdown reversed much of the progress we had made under the transformations of Universal Credit, in part relaxing eligibility rules and assessments for benefits, a leniency that astonishingly continues to this day. But also expanding the 'claim culture', albeit inadvertently, through schemes like furlough. It is easy to forget that by 2019 we had the lowest rate of workless households on record. Clearly, we have to get a grip. But solving this problem will take thought, courage and time. The Government's proposals are rushed in order to be 'scored' by the OBR in time for the Spring Statement. In a panic, the Treasury opted to simply top-slice spending by raising the threshold for disability benefits across the board. This leads to some deeply concerning outcomes. According to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), three in four Personal Independence Payment (PIP) claimants with arthritis, two in three with cardiovascular disease, and even a third with cancer could lose support. Yet there is another way, one which focuses on the root causes of the crisis. But that must start with a grown-up conversation about mental health. Monthly PIP claims have more than doubled, driven in large part by a threefold increase in people citing mental health conditions. Meanwhile the majority of people on Universal Credit receiving health-related top-ups now also report poor mental health. Tragically, it is disproportionately young people fuelling this rise, those most likely to suffer the mental and emotional consequences of being out of work. And yet it is the system itself that is driving worklessness and dependency. Of course, PIP eligibility does not require someone to be out of work. Yet five in six recipients are. Taken in the round, once you tot up all the various benefits, the system has tilted towards incentivising ill health rather than supporting recovery. There is another way. New research from the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) shows that better targeting of mental health benefits – focusing help to those with more serious conditions – could save the Government up to £9 billion. A more humane and sustainable approach to reform would recognise that, for many people with anxiety or depression, ensuring proper treatment is much more compassionate than parking them on benefits and slamming the door to an independent life. First, the government could use the savings to fund a £1 billion investment in NHS Talking Therapies, expanding 1.5 million additional treatment courses. CSJ polling also finds that nearly half the public believe people with less severe conditions should be supported through programmes and services, compared to one in five saying cash. Second, the Government should accelerate the rollout of Universal Support, originally launched by the last Conservative government and now rebranded as Connect to Work. This scheme works with the local charities and community organisations best placed to help people who are furthest from the workforce. These inspirational people are already on the ground, collaborating with employers to tackle the most difficult barriers to work, whether family breakdown, debt, addiction, and poor health. Finally, for the first time, sickness benefit is being brought into Universal Credit as I had designed originally. The DWP now has powerful tools Universal Credit provides. The NHS has made it clear that for depression and anxiety, the largest new claimant group, work is a health treatment. Yet far too many people were left on sickness benefit with no meaningful contact. Many who were off work for health reasons received no time with a work coach at all. Now under Universal credit that can change. The system should be doing more – using AI to free up work coach time – to increase the contact time with claimants and not leaving them parked on the sidelines. Our welfare system needs reform, not arbitrary cuts. I understand the pressure Liz Kendall is under. But short-term fixes risk doing lasting damage. We need a system that treats people with compassion while actively supporting them to recover and return to work. That's how to reduce dependency, control costs, and rebuild lives.