Sir Keir Starmer Adopts a Firmer Stance

“I’m not putting up with this anymore” could well have been the underlying message of Sir Keir Starmer’s significant speech this week, according to one senior source. Sir Keir’s address did more than just list his political priorities; it revealed a “frustration, a genuine annoyance,” a sentiment that has been evident in Westminster for several weeks, regarding the perceived difficulty in achieving objectives, as stated by another source. Insiders claim the Prime Minister was not merely criticizing civil servants but also attempting to counter pessimistic public perceptions that governments are largely ineffective in improving people’s lives. Sir Keir is known for his aversion to being told that something cannot be accomplished. His speech, which No 10 had been planning since before the Budget at the end of October, provides a benchmark for assessing the government’s progress. It indicates what the Prime Minister’s team has identified as most crucial to the public and, consequently, the nation’s most urgent problems to resolve. Allies of the Prime Minister dismiss suggestions that it was merely another campaign event, asserting that governing inherently involves making choices. They emphasize that significant decisions have been made regarding what to pursue, and by implication, what has been de-prioritized. However, beyond policy matters, this week’s events saw Sir Keir and No 10 “stamping authority on things,” an insider noted, not only in a broad political sense but also in a very specific manner. Whitehall is increasingly preoccupied with the upcoming spending review, the point at which the Treasury will detail departmental funding for the coming years, likely after Easter, in May or early June. The insider added that the Prime Minister has now publicly established priorities, ensuring that “no one can wriggle away from the fact No 10 will be in charge.” While No 10’s authority is generally assumed, one source recalls that the Spending Review process was devised by then-Chancellor Gordon Brown to ensure that “he could control the big decisions, not Tony [Blair].” For years, the established pattern has involved negotiations between the Chancellor at No 11 and other government departments over financial allocations. According to one Sir Keir ally: “The Treasury has had the pen and the meetings and the numbers, then No 10 gets involved for the political risk at the end.” This time, the approach is different. With Sir Keir’s announcements this week, “political strategy comes first,” followed by “the pounds and pence,” it is understood, with the agreement of Rachel Reeves. There is also an expectation that such a public declaration of priorities (these are the Prime Minister’s own words) might prevent internal dissent leading up to that vital review. Sir Keir has clearly articulated his priorities. The intention is that if a minister’s agenda is not fortunate enough to be on his list of priorities, arguing privately or publicly through allies or journalists will not gain traction, as “the political choices have been made,” a source states. Nevertheless, it may not be entirely straightforward for the Prime Minister to assert his authority, express frustration, and then suddenly find himself in complete control. New targets set by a new, visibly frustrated Prime Minister are unlikely to instantly persuade everyone. Another Whitehall insider commented, “I thought he managed to cosplay both Rishi and Boris in one go yesterday with six targets and the CS [civil service] stuff,” playfully suggesting he emulated two predecessors. Sir Keir has set six targets, whereas Rishi Sunak’s government was driven by five pledges during his unsuccessful tenure. And just as Sir Keir spoke of “naysayers” in his speech, Boris Johnson was known for confronting what he described as the “doomsters” and “gloomsters.” Sir Keir would likely disapprove of comparisons to Johnson or Sunak, whom he criticized while they were in office. He would certainly wish to avoid giving the impression of imitating their style or strategy. However, he is frequently accused of altering his own positions. Sir Keir’s joke about being the next James Bond was merely a jest. It is unclear if he has ever engaged in fancy dress, certainly as an adult. Yet, it is evident that various versions of Sir Keir have emerged, often accompanied by apparent contradictions. These include his portrayal as a tough sheriff during the summer riots, focused on rapidly incarcerating offenders, who is now exploring shorter prison sentences for some wrongdoers. He was also seen as a City schmoozer, attempting to attract businesses to Labour’s cause, who subsequently imposed billions in taxes on firms. Furthermore, the Prime Minister, advocating for a radical overhaul of the state, this week appointed a traditional Whitehall insider as the head of the civil service. And, notably, he was an aspiring party leader from Labour’s moderate left who had stood alongside Jeremy Corbyn, only to later disavow him and his policies. A senior official warned that “it looks like cakeism,” suggesting the Prime Minister desires to pursue all options, avoids being defined, or choosing his core principles, or perhaps, the official speculates, he genuinely does not know. A long-standing criticism of Sir Keir is his perceived lack of a distinct ideology and affiliation with any particular political faction, making it challenging to discern his fundamental beliefs. A former senior official described him as a “sole trader” in politics, someone who acts as required in specific situations but lacks understanding of empathy or persuasion, stating, “he doesn’t persuade or influence – he wants the country to eat our all bran, but he also thinks it’s beneath people to be motivated by human connection or emotion.” Another insider observed, “his shtick is what works, so there is no ‘Starmerism’ – that means it’s difficult for the civil service to know what he stands for, or what he might instinctively want to do about most issues.” However, the Prime Minister’s evident display of irritation has genuinely disturbed officials in Whitehall. Undeniably, some officials interpret his recent comments as an attack on them. These remarks were met with shock, described by one as “weird” and unexpected. The implication that the civil service is content with mediocrity has genuinely surprised and distressed officials who believe they have exerted considerable effort to understand their ministers and the new government’s agenda, and to assist in achieving its objectives. A senior official stated, “The anger is real” and “suggests a disconnect” between No 10 and departments where civil servants have been “working like dogs” to comprehend their new leader’s plans. His allies do not, and have never, asserted that Sir Keir is in politics to cultivate friendships. He openly acknowledges that he may need to be unpopular to achieve his goals. They contend that he aligns with public sentiment and prioritizes results over Westminster’s concerns. This approach may have led him to adopt various political personas over time, playing different roles as circumstances demand. An ally concedes that his changes in position mean that for “people looking to be critical of him, the Left or the Tories, that can mean he looks inconsistent.” However, they argue that “a more fair and honest appraisal of him is that he is just focused on what works.” Sources close to him repeatedly describe his political character as “pragmatist.” After all, the public is not entirely satisfied with the outcomes delivered by politicians who have prioritized ideology. Politics is seldom straightforward, and no successful leader has rigidly adhered to a pre-set course. Nevertheless, a union leader expressed concern, stating, “in government it’s the substance and judgement that counts. You need something to fall back on, your guiding principles that help you make those judgements.” Consistency is also significant. Sir Keir’s allies state he is considerably more content as Prime Minister than he was as Leader of the Opposition, as he can now take action rather than merely speak. However, an insider cautioned that the Prime Minister’s frustrations might originate not from a lack of willingness within Whitehall to act, but from a lack of clarity in his directives to the government. The insider argued, “Maybe he knows how to “be” PM but not how to “do” it. They don’t actually know what they want to do beyond the level of vague generalities.” After five months in government, the Prime Minister is adopting a new role: that of the frustrated boss. His decision to point fingers at “naysayers” and “blockers,” referring to those he described as “wallowing in the tepid bath,” is a deliberate choice. This persona is currently being projected by Sir Keir as he endeavors to strengthen his control over the government apparatus. A source who has worked closely with the Prime Minister stated,