Mercifully, Keir Starmer is no longer prime minister. Though my unadulterated jubilation has been moderated by the shame of Atlanta, I’m glad – glad to see the back of the man it would be harsh to describe as Labour’s worst prime minister, but can fairly be called its most pathetic. Copiously present in national life, but utterly irrelevant to our meaningful existence, like nitrogen. The ambient man.
Starmer’s great skill was a lawyerly awareness of what to say and when, how to avoid verbal ensnarement and diplomatic complication, and – crucially, when it came to facing Boris Johnson – the application of those same mechanisms to his enemies while in opposition. So what intrigued me about Starmer was that, despite this clear grasp of the power of language, he said so little, and meant less of it still.
Consider his election to the leadership of the Labour Party on, as far as the membership was concerned, a weapons-grade platform of policy positions. Some of his promises: increase income tax for the top 5 per cent of earners, abolish Universal Credit, support the abolition of tuition fees, no more illegal wars, abolish the House of Lords, lower energy bills by £300. We now know that Starmer was less the architect of these ideas than their vessel, identified by Morgan McSweeney as the prime candidate to implement his own vision. We also now know the true nature of Labour’s general election campaign, organised by the scandal-ridden Labour Together, thanks to the exhaustive reporting of Patrick Maguire and Gabriel Pogrund, and others.
The observant will have noticed the continued presence of ermine on the parliamentary estate. I could mention, too, that my energy bills are yet to be £300 cheaper. Maybe they will be in 2030. That’s because those pledges were lies, ankle-flashing to the Labour left.
We should pause here, briefly, to consider this dishonesty in its context. Starmer became party leader opposite Johnson, a man who could lie in 1,000 different ways: by obfuscation and bloviation, by exaggeration, omission and comic digression, by promising different things to different people. Starmer’s dishonesty was different: colder, more ruthless and specific. His were not the lies of a man with a pathological indifference to the distinction between truth and fiction, but of a man who knows precisely what he is doing.
Starmer was acutely aware of what the Labour membership wanted, and he told them they’d get it. But for his next election he faced a very different electorate, which required a different message. And so, he shifted his rhetoric to the right. He spoke more about fiscal discipline or welfare cuts than significant increases to infrastructure spending, or the revolutionary decreases in childcare costs for young parents. He promised not to increase taxes, before adding the qualifier “on working people”. Since securing power his government has increased taxes by £62bn.
It is not miraculous that this strategy, this disjunct between word and deed, alienated the broader electorate, just as it did the Labour Party’s left. It was too clever by half, and the ultimate cause of the collapse of Starmer’s political authority.
The irony is that Starmer’s great miscalculation was that he wasn’t cynical enough. He understood politics as a contest of messages, opponents and moments; he underestimated the extent to which politics is also a contest of meaning. Voters will forgive almost anything from a politician who is authentically taking them somewhere. They will forgive difficult choices, broken promises, even failure. But if they suspect you of dishonesty, of inauthenticity, they will not follow you.
Starmer’s verbal precision discredited and condemned him morally. He was the prime minister who would sooner say that “Israel has that right” to cut off power and water to Gaza, a war crime, in an LBC interview a few days after 7 October, than condemn the slaughter of Palestinian civilians. Later, he said he had misspoken. I think the moment was more revealing: history will remember him for Britain’s complicity in the massacre of Gaza, perhaps alongside his more authoritarian indulgences: social media bans for teenagers, the thousands arrested for social media posts and the attempted imposition of digital ID.
I wish people would stop calling Starmer a decent man. It is not decent to lie. It is not decent to indulge warmongers. It is not decent to, as happened to Faiza Shaheen, abandon a mother who has devoted her life to beating former Tory leaders in safe seats because she is too left-wing. It is not decent to humiliate a predecessor because it’s expedient to do so. It is not decent to refuse to lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, then scrap the two-child benefit cap after caving to internal pressure and to try to take the credit in a resignation speech.
That Starmer declines to name his children in public is not a moral absolution for these horrors. In fact, what kind of father would, when Russian-linked assets are firebombing your home? No, Keir Starmer is gone and I am glad. Here’s hoping Andy Burnham can do better. The bar is low.
Listen to Tom McTague in conversation with Oli Dugmore about Starmer’s departure on our interview podcast The Exchange
[Further reading: Finally, a Prime Minister who prioritises homelessness]
Content from our partners
Related
This article appears in the 22 Jul 2026 issue of the New Statesman, The Take Over
Join the debate
Subscribe here to commentDo you seriously believe that Burnham does not ever lie or indulge warmongers? If so, why did he call Donald Trump as one of his first acts? Why did he mislead us about the funding of the VAT cut for electricity? On the other hand, If not, what is the point of this childish article?
I do agree with main thrust of this piece. Starme r did lie.Sometimes in the most transparent way He appeared on camera saying that Corbyn was his “friend” only to deny he’d ever said it,again on camera, later,. His treatment of Corbyn was positively shameful, as was his continuing support of the Israeli genocide
More a duplicitous man than a good one!
Here Here!!!
Re comments validation: Please correct your grammar – it is EITHER Awaiting validation OR Waiting for validation NOT Awaiting for validation. TutTut. I thought the Grauniad had got past that!
A bit of a rubbish article not becoming of the NS. Some of the points raised are correct – the LBC interview was shocking – and more should have been made of this – but a rant does Oli no favours. He argues about the Lords still being there, but if Starmer was given only two years (not five) he cannot argue this promise was not delivered (of course, like every leader before him, they have all failed to deliver on this promise).
Oli likes his pet subjects, of course. But to suggest a social media ban (the subject being looked at by governments across the world – I remain agnostic on this – waiting to see more evidence and argument before jumping), and the imprisoning of Lucy Connelly was not right, is simply bonkers.
Oli clearly carries a flame for Faiza Shaheen, as though no Labour leader (including JC) has done such a thing before.
And where is the most obvious target – the Winter Fuel Allowance debacle? No Labour leader/Party should ever have suggested the change proposed – and that has not been forgotten – except by Oli it seems.
Like so many articles recently, I expect NS to do far better than this.
To get elected every Labour leader has told the party faithfull one thing and the electorate another. The two election processes are totally different. Most political parties do the same but for Labour we seem to want to hold ourselves to a different standard. It’s rubbish! Most Labour MPs seem to end up in parliament after being a reseacher for an MP and prior to that working for a charity straight out of university. It’s a tough career and they do not call it the greasy pole for nothing e.g. the last couple of months. Andy Burnham tells Labour voters what they want to hear for now because the messages blend well with dealing with the steep rises in the cost of living (more rises to come). Let’s see what messages the Labour government are putting out this time next year.
I think Oli has long ago decided that he hates Keir and here’s a good opportunity to give him a good kicking. In reality many of Keir’s failings occured because he and Rachel Reeves are managerial and insufficiently instinctive. A friend of mine (also an MP) would say cock up rather than conspiracy. I agree that Jeremy Corbyn was treated badly by many (not only by Keir) but Oli is frankly just as bad in putting the boot in. I am a long time supporter of Andy Burnham and Steve Rotherham who have led the way in applying traditional Labour movement traditions to the problems we face. I love the idea of a mass council house building policy, whats not to like? I am looking forward to Conference in Liverpool and engaging in the fringe debates as we enter a more Atlee/Wilson era of Labour Government. I think Andy should brand us, not New Labour but Real Labour.
Brilliant article. The answer, is no. Burnham cannot do any better. His record in Manchester is mixed. He too, is ankle flashing Labour’s base who have long deserted them. While offering nothing on climate other than the status quo and nothing on foreign policy. Trying to ignore the last two will work for a while, but the rubber will meet the road, probably within the next 6 months. The political cycle moves far faster than the establishment can appsreciate.
I enjoyed this, especially amongst all the eulogies and guff. Starmer was a liar who lied in order to get into power – but didn’t have a clue what to do once he was there. He fell into the usual trap of thinking he was in power when he was merely in office. His proudest claim was to “save the Labour Party” – presumable from Corbyn and the Left. He is no better than May or Cameron in confusing the interests of his party with the interests of the country.