Keir Starmer has often been criticised for lacking a clear vision and plan for government. Elected with a broad and disparate coalition of support, and with a practised lawyer’s desire to take each case as it comes, Starmer’s early months as Prime Minister have been characterised by ambiguity. The defining policies of the new government have therefore often been deeply unpopular decisions, such as means-testing the winter fuel allowance, rather than anything more distinctive. Starmer’s personal ratings have fallen rapidly as a result.
To their credit, No 10’s core team have fought to overcome this tendency. But commentators still complain that it has been hard to discern a singular vision. Different ideas have vied for attention – respect for working people, ordinary hope, stability is change – but none have enjoyed obvious dominance.
At the recent cabinet away day, the organising principle was a blue-tinged “insurgency”: tough on immigration and the causes of immigration, sceptical of the civil service and wanting to move fast, even if it means breaking a few things. Some of this has taken public shape too. The right of those granted refugee status to later apply for British citizenship has been whittled away. Criticism of the Attorney General has continued. The Times has even reported some questioning the future of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Donald Trump has loomed over all of these debates. In this context, it was no surprise that Starmer’s team were intent on hugging the US president close on their first trip to Washington.
But after Trump and JD Vance’s attack on Volodymyr Zelensky, Starmer was faced with a choice. With polling showing that the public wanted Starmer to back Zelensky over Trump, by a margin of 51 per cent to 20 percent, it was time to open arms wide to the Ukrainian leader. In the days since, Starmer might not have fully returned to his roots as the defender of human rights against tyranny – he has largely eschewed rhetorical critiques – but the shift has been unmistakeable.
But where does this all leave Starmer and his vision for the country? New UCL Policy Lab and More in Common research suggests there has never been an appetite among the British public for our own version of Trump. And there is an even deeper aversion to the suggestion that Starmer should try to mimic his US counterpart. The British people are desperate for change, but they are far from Trumpian. They do not want to move too fast. And they certainly don’t want to break things.
This is clear across our research. While a majority of Reform voters want to “start from scratch” and rip up the institutional order, the public as a whole do not. They think our country’s recent failure has been due to political leadership, not to excessive rules and regulations. They would prefer to move at a pace that balances genuine impatience for progress with pragmatism, in tune with the country’s best traditions and values. In short, they want radicalism, not recklessness; change, but not chaos.
What that means, most of all, is that they want at home, the same Starmer that they see abroad: sensible, moderate, driven by the need for partnership and compromise, but with a set of identifiably liberal principles guiding him.
This is particularly true of the coalition of voters who voted for Labour in 2024. They are desperate for real action on the cost of living, on the NHS and on immigration, but they want that action to be serious and thoughtful and they are well aware of the trade-offs that are to come. Furthermore, they are actively resistant to some of the more populist routes proposed to the government. Over 40 per cent say they wouldn’t vote Labour again if it abandoned action on climate change or prevented safe routes for refugees.
Keir Starmer has instinctively shown a grasp of this British commitment to change by offering pragmatism, rather than populism, over Ukraine. His long-term political success will depend on him demonstrating that at home too.
Content from our partners
Related
