Labour has had its bad moments, devaluation in 1949 under Clement Attlee, devaluation again in 1967 under Harold Wilson, and the International Monetary Fund crisis in 1976 under Jim Callaghan. But all those crises were largely beyond the control of government.
The unfolding war in Iran is a huge external shock, but the crisis that Keir Starmer finds himself in is both greater and more self-inflicted than these three black spots in Labour history. Unlike the earlier prime ministers, Starmer arrived in office with an underpowered cabinet and No 10 and without a plan, most significantly for growing the economy. Starmer and his Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, have failed to generate growth.
For all that, changing the skipper is deeply perilous, even if the local elections are terrible. The bubble will get very excited about whoever Starmer’s successor is, but in truth they don’t matter very much. Starmer is hard-working, honourable and highly intelligent. He may even be improving. And he certainly won’t give up the captain’s bridge without a huge fight.
A change of leader at this point, especially if accompanied by the appointment of a new chancellor in whom the markets had no confidence, could prove fatal. The markets are watching fiscal policy like hawks: Andy Burnham’s comments on 29 April on borrowing outside the fiscal rules to fund defence spending had an immediately adverse effect.
The government is much closer to stoking a financial crisis akin to Liz Truss than it realises. Labour has precious little room for manoeuvre: failing to grow the economy, and imprudent spending decisions over the last two years, have contributed significantly to this predicament. A surgical replacement of Reeves by either Pat McFadden or John Healey, both of whom would command respect from the markets, would help shore up Starmer’s position.
But so too would bringing back some of the wisdom and experience that is available. Most conspicuously, Tony Blair could be appointed foreign secretary, though it would be tough on Yvette Cooper who’s doing a good job. But at the time of greatest international peril since the end of the Cold War, to have a figure representing Britain who is known across the world, and widely if not universally respected, would transform Britain’s power. He would, if given the office, stand up to Donald Trump and to Vladimir Putin: one of his last actions as prime minister before he stood down in 2007 was to read the riot act in private to Putin, who was pleased to see the back of him.
“Blair has far too much baggage above all Iraq,” people said when I wrote about the idea earlier in the year. And yes, Iraq still casts a long shadow. But he would not be the first prime minister to come back to be foreign secretary with an awkward history. The post is unlike any other in the government, and for most of British history was a more senior position than chancellor of the Exchequer. David Cameron carried far more authority internationally when he returned as foreign secretary in October 2023 than is generally realised, and gave a big lift to the Sunak premiership. The worries about his baggage, including Brexit and the Greensill lobbying affair, didn’t become an issue. Alec Douglas-Home returned as foreign secretary under Ted Heath in 1970 with much more baggage, namely his association with appeasement as Neville Chamberlain’s bag carrier at the Munich conference in 1938. Yet he proved an effective and respected foreign secretary for over three years.
Bringing back Blair would help Starmer domestically as well, and would provide him with guidance on how to be Prime Minister, a subject on which he has not been listening thus far. Starmer would find it very hard to ignore his counsel. Blair would also provide stability and confidence to the markets. For ten years when he was prime minister and Gordon Brown was chancellor, the country saw fiscal prudence and economic growth. It was also the most successful period for the party electorally in its history. Economic success and electoral success go hand in glove.
Why stop at Blair? Old hands, albeit not enough of them, are already bringing steel to Starmer’s team. The skills minister Jacqui Smith, Brown’s former home secretary, is proving one of the most effective middle-ranking ministers in Starmer’s government, while the former health secretary Alan Milburn is showing cabinet ministers how to get the job done in his capacity as leader of the review into Neets (people not in education, employment or training).
John Major is the latest senior figure to say that the constant churn of prime ministers is madness and has to stop. As PM between 1990-97, he was constantly the subject of leadership challenges. Now, with the perspective of 30 years of history, he looks like a much better PM than contemporaries thought. Like Starmer, he was diligent and hard-working, but not a star communicator. His record in office stands up well. Could the same be true of Starmer’s?
Starmer needs to take bold decisions across the board. The best leaders are bold leaders. Why, at a moment of such peril for the country, would Keir Starmer not want to be bold and draw on the brightest and best?
Anthony Seldon is writing “Sunak at No 10”, the next in his series on British prime ministers. But he is really hoping not to write Starmer at No 10 for a decent time yet
[Further reading: Lame duck prime ministers rarely last long]
Content from our partners
Related
Join the debate
Subscribe here to commentHow similar is this to Sunak bringing Cameron in as Foreign Secretary? I think not very, and the New Labour baggage (particularly with post-Mandelson) makes this a ridiculous idea.
What a load of nonsense. “Widely if not universally respected”, give me a break. The world has changed and this obsession with clinging on to out of touch old names will only throttle any chance Britain has at navigating the new order successfully. Thank god this is a bizarre pipe dream and stands no chance of coming to fruition
An attempt to lure Starmer into something so universally unpopular that he’s finally forced out?
I just don’t see this as a workable solution. I don’t see Blair as someone who’s capable of being in a sub-ordinate position. The only government position he’s ever held is that of Prime Minister, and he doesn’t strike me as the kind of person to just accept the judgement of Starmer if they disagree. If Starmer’s problem is authority, then I don’t see a Labour ‘big beast’ stalking around him as a good thing.
Sticking with the Blair era has been this government’s big mistake. Mandelson is a Blair era ghost and politics has changed unrecognisably since they were in office. Starmer needs to appoint someone young to serve as a kind of press secretary, not just rotate round the old guard to try and artificially create a technocratically supreme state.
The one where Blair told Labour’s traditional voters they were toast – his speech at the Labour Party Conference of 2005:
“I hear people say we have to stop and debate globalisation. You might as well debate whether autumn should follow summer…
“The character of this changing world is indifferent to tradition. “Unforgiving of frailty.
“No respecter of past reputations. “It has no custom and practice.
“It is replete with opportunities, but they only go to those swift to adapt, slow to complain, open, willing and able to change.”
That should help?
“Blair would stand up to Trump” Any evidence for this claim? I would suggest there is evidence for the opposite.
There’s about 5% of Brits who would be impressed by this and they are all already supporting Labour.
Would this not be yet another example of Starmer’s failure to understand politics? However much weight and kudos Blair would bring to the job, his brand is toxic with Labour and much of the electorate, and more so as the negative effects of his constitutional changes are increasingly apparent. It also assumes Starmer can and should survive. Repeat changes of PM is best avoided but not if they’re incompetent, and please, let’s not kid ourselves that Major was an effective PM. He forced Maastricht through parliament without building the support needed to last beyond a generation. That’s a political failing in my book.
John Major didn’t make a mistake a month though.
If you say that Major made 3 large errors, Maastricht, the ERM and privatising the railways that wouldn’t be unreasonable.
I am not sure Maastricht was an error either. Lisbon was the error so soon after a very large treaty.
I’m pretty sure Starmer is too thin skinned tp bring back Blair, and it would probably create even more problens with the membership
A big mistake by Starmer was not bringing in Emily Thornberry as Foreign Secretary, a shadow post she had held successfully.
Alternatively, and more plausibly, Starmer could invite Burnham in as his #2 (but definitely not Chancellor) to revive the growth & domestic agenda whilst taking over the foreign affairs & defence portfolios himself. Oh, and sack Reeves- of course!!
Tony has resisted becoming a member of the Lords so that is problem number one. His skills far outpass Starmers so how would the Cabinet react when faced with a successful politician? However, needs must. Starmer is very similar to Brown but without 10 years of successful running the economy. A small thing, I know. Starmer will face a different decision when the results come in this weekend. I know he will blame everyone else, so Rachel will probably be sacked as the sacrificial lamb.