Starmer Is Learning The Lessons Of Politics The Hard Way – OpEd

By Yossi Mekelberg

Few could have foreseen that merely 17 months after Keir Starmer led the Labour Party to victory in the UK general election, winning a 174-seat majority in Parliament, that he would find himself fighting for his job.

While the British prime minister must take much of the blame for being in this situation — and in his defense, he does admit responsibility — the underlying difficulties of UK politics and society go far beyond one leader’s shortcomings. The country has had six prime ministers in the past decade, which is hardly a sign of a functioning political system. Part of the predicament that Starmer finds himself in is how he sees his role; part of it has to do with the way British politics is conducted; and, more generally, the unforgiving nature of modern politics, which in an age of instant communication, constant scrutiny, and unbearable impatience, means that governments can be judged too harshly and too quickly.

The latest storm that threatens to unseat the current British prime minister is not unjustified, as his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador in Washington was a total lapse of judgment. There was never any doubt that Mandelson’s political skills and wealth of experience in government, including on the international stage, would stand him in good stead in dealing with a major and challenging ally. Yet this was also someone who was nicknamed the “Prince of Darkness.” He was also one of the original spin doctors in British politics, and was twice forced to resign from government for failing to live up to the ethical standards of public life.

For a prime minister whose election campaign relied heavily on a promise to rid the country of years of Conservative sleaze, appointing Mandelson was extremely unwise. The resignation of Starmer’s chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, the mastermind behind Mandelson’s appointment, has given the prime minister breathing space. Yet, in the fast-paced world of modern politics, he still might be only a misstep or two away from losing his job. With Labour lagging far behind Reform in the polls and only just edging the even less popular Conservatives, and the prime minister’s approval ratings plummeting, he has his work cut out to convince the electorate that they should still trust him as leader. In the short term, he must convince those Labour MPs who can decide his future almost instantly.

It is a truism that nothing genuinely prepares a person for the most powerful job in the country, a position that depends on learning extremely fast, a strong sense of direction and values, and healthy political instincts. Winning an unassailable election victory should have given Starmer the self-belief and confidence to go against his cautious nature.

For many Labour MPs, more than half of whom have been elected for the first time, the impressive showing at the ballot box created the expectation of a radical Labour agenda — not unreasonable in light of voters comprehensively rejecting the legacy of the Conservatives’ 14 years in power. Moreover, for the more left leaning of the Labour Party, Starmer and his policies were too middle-of-the-road to begin with, and he was not their first choice to lead the party, let alone the country. However, Labour’s decisive victory left them with little ammunition to criticize those who masterminded it, including their ideological arch-nemesis McSweeney. Yet they still held high expectations for a new, radical agenda, only to be disappointed or, possibly, to have their suspicions confirmed.

To be sure, successive Conservative governments left a difficult legacy, with deep divisions over Brexit and immigration, underinvestment in public services, and a rocketing cost of living. For the new government and its leader it has not been enough to blame their predecessors for all the country’s ills; they needed to make an immediate impact while incorporating changes into their long-term strategies. They might have attached too much importance to the fact that their share of the popular vote was less impressive than the result itself, due to the first-past-the-post electoral system, which suggested that voters were more keen to punish the Conservatives than to wholeheartedly put their trust in Labour.

Still, Labour received a mandate to set an agenda that could change the country’s direction, and especially rebuild trust with its traditional voters. Instead, Starmer took a far too cautious and incremental approach, failing to stamp his authority on the party, and making too many U-turns. This was all the ammunition that his rivals and doubters from all parts of the political spectrum needed, and, worse for him, exposed divisions in his own party early on.

Starmer is learning some of the lessons of modern British politics the hard way. You might think that winning a huge majority in a general election allows you five years to build success until the next time of asking, but it does not. Those who covet your job, your ideological rivals, and the media will constantly scrutinize you, and you will get more flak for your mistakes than praise for your successes.

A common mistake made by British prime ministers is to assume that their faction in Parliament will be sympathetic to the challenges of their job given the pressure of their domestic and international agendas, and forgive them for failing to pay attention to them and their concerns. Earlier this week Starmer had to eat humble pie and ask his party to unite behind him. They grudgingly obliged — at least for now.

A crucial by-election in the north of the country at the end of the month, followed in May by municipal elections, as well as local assembly elections for Scotland and Wales, might seal Starmer’s political fate. The next few months will show whether the government and its leader have been given the time and space to successfully ride out the storm, or whether the Labour Party will look for an alternative.

* Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. X: @YMekelberg