Britain’s new Prime Minister has a real image problem. In just five months Keir Starmer’s approval rating has plummeted to -38, a significant drop from the +11 rating he held post-election, according to a More in Common poll. The desire for change in the British public has seemingly remained steadfast, moving against the Conservatives to Labour. What can be said, however, looking at the past six months of government? Does the British public deserve better? As we settle into the new year, let's take a look at what the government did right, and where it failed.
The momentum Starmer saw in the first weeks after the July landslide victory was stifled by the anti-immigration riots around the country. A legislative agenda that began with a focus on economic growth and international outreach was halted by false information about attacks in Stockport and a small but vocal minority of racists descending on the country’s immigration centres. The mood shifted afterwards - what felt like an exciting change from the conservatives turned to crisis. Starmer was then criticised for opening space in prisons, releasing non-violent inmates early to free up space for the rioters. The country was jolted back to reality - the honeymoon period was over, and sooner than we thought.
Whilst only a short lived protest, coupled with larger counter-protests in most major cities, the aftermath left a mark on the new government's record. Starmer, to his credit, acted decisively. However, damage done to the already struggling UK courts was inevitable due to the swift exercise of justice. This moment seemed to be the beginning of a tough autumn period for the government.
Our next flashpoint was the winter fuel allowance - a payment to pensioners for their winter payments, introduced in 1997 by the last Labour government. In July, a move to a means-tested approach was announced, meaning not all pensioners would receive the allowance. What ensued was a barrage of conservative politicians, normally in favour of such a change, lamenting this and accusing the government of abandoning the elderly. What ought to have been an economic argument, turned into an emotional one.
Labour’s biggest fault in this debacle was messaging, something which is becoming a real barrier to progress across the board. The government allowed their policy to be positioned as ‘anti-pensioner’, and the move was posed less as a necessary economic choice and more as a deliberate hit to the elderly. What could have been positioned as a sensible approach, focusing on the needs of poorer pensioners, simply hurt the government’s credentials.
The attitude of Starmer so far seems to be ‘show, don’t tell’, but messaging in government is simply crucial. Communicating a narrative in the wake of the election requires a combination of ‘showing’ how effective the policies can be, and ‘telling’ the public why the government is focused on them. Instead, we saw a manifesto of ‘five pledges’ with unrealistic goals such as the ‘fastest growth in the G7’, and now ‘six milestones’ to judge the government on, with specific targets such as building 1.5 million homes. Quite frankly, the average voter is not going to name any of these a week after hearing about them.
Starmer needs to drop the numbers game - no more ‘five pledges’ or ‘six milestones’. This is made worse by the constant justification from Labour ministers when criticised that ‘we inherited a mess’. The time for tory-bashing has passed with the election - people want to see real change, and Starmer’s ‘six milestones’ won’t cause this. In the age of social media, what voters see online is tailored to individuals more than ever. Populists such as Nigel Farage, who focus media campaigns on tiny proportions of illegal immigrants arriving on small boats, shape the narrative in the absence of the government doing so.
It is no secret Starmer isn’t exactly a charisma machine - he takes a legalistic approach to politics, becoming an effective prosecutor of the previous conservative government. This clearly worked in the election campaign, and his ‘mission-led’ government approach suits his sensibilities. After the chaos of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, the public initially enjoyed the seriousness of Starmer’s arrival. What seems necessary now, however, is an optimistic vision of Britain and the delivery of results to back it up. Starmer boasts he can do the latter, but without a clear narrative his bid for a second term may fail.
Now that 2024 has come to an end, we might ask what lessons could be learned from this past year of elections. If anything seems obvious, it’s that incumbency is no longer a surefire aid to a campaign. The public is increasingly impatient with governments across the world, and seeking alternatives from outside the ‘establishment’. Things could be different by the next election, but if Starmer doesn’t realise this changing dynamic, our new Labour government could be extremely short-lived.