Sir Keir Starmer’s first week as prime minister ends with Britain feeling a less parochial and more open‑minded place. The Labour leader’s appearance at the Nato summit went off smoothly, and leaks suggest he will downgrade migration as a major topic in talks with European leaders next week. The most common response to the new government, say pollsters, is to feel hopeful and relieved. Labour is set for a summer honeymoon with the public. Sir Keir is a lucky general. If England’s men win Euro 2024, he would be the most charmed politician of the modern age.
The prime minister might be happy that more Britons appear favourable towards him than before the election and that they seem more likely to expect his government to change things for the better than for the worse. This could be a double-edged sword. More than half of those polled think Labour will increase public spending in the next year. Sir Keir has lowered expectations, perhaps so that they can be easily met. But the electorate voted for change, not continuity, which is why Sir Keir ought to revisit his decision not to abolish the two‑child benefit cap that sees families get no extra means‑tested support beyond their second child.
With a record 1.6 million children affected, Labour MPs will table an amendment to scrap the limit. This will highlight divisions in the party. That may suit Sir Keir, who says he is interested in power, not protest. But this would be a political mistake. In 2024 the British Social Attitudes survey found that almost three‑quarters of the public say there is “quite a lot” of real poverty in Britain – the highest proportion recorded in nearly four decades. Last year it said the public were “as leftwing in their outlook as they have been at any time since 1986”. Sir Keir seems reluctant to respond to the public mood. That position cannot be held for long.
Almost 15 years of shocks have profoundly changed the basis of political affinities. In Scotland, the split is between nationalists, who want the country to leave the UK, and unionists, who don’t. Brexit divided voters along a different dimension – between “social liberals” and “authoritarians”. The Covid-19 pandemic made inequality an ideological division in British politics for the left. Rightwingers sought cleavages over so-called “woke” issues that touch upon aspects of morality, mores, history and identity.
It would be odd if these recent shifts in society were not reflected in a party that wishes to lead it. A changed Labour party, in that respect, is both welcome and inevitable. Historically, Labour existed so that the struggles taking place outside parliament could be translated into legislative reform within it. This means reconciling the party’s base, which seeks radical social change, with those who prefer to extend the party’s electoral appeal with a gradual, negotiated programme. Sir Keir is firmly in the latter camp.
But distancing himself from the unions and sidelining internal democracy risks Sir Keir becoming isolated from the rest of the movement. Many of his MPs are well aware of how thin their victory margins were this time. They want to deliver for their voters and activists. The lurking danger is that without being rooted in its members’ experiences, Labour could simply become an electoral machine relying on majoritarian impulses. That would not be good for the UK, which needs to be firmly reset by permanent progressive change.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
