The man without a plan - Kier Starmer is not a man most people would accuse of being driven by vision. Cast your mind back to the election campaign. What exactly did he promise? Stability, whiter than white leadership and vague, undefined “change”. Plus, he campaigned heavily on how broken Britain’s public services were.
But let’s face it, most of their vote came from people voting against the Conservative Party rather than for the Labour Party. There was certainly no policy agenda that shook the nation, and people didn’t buy into any bold plan.
But inside the Westminster bubble, there was a quiet assumption that Labour must surely have used its years in opposition to prepare for government to hit the ground running.
And to be fair, they have hit the ground running - but only in the sense of repeatedly tripping over their own laces and crashing into obstacles, forcing them to U-turn so much so that their ‘run’ resembles a headless chicken running around in circles.
And yes, Labour will always be dogged by ideology leading to nonsensical, economically illiterate polices like VAT on private schools and the great attack on the very people who put the food on our tables - our farmers.
But at the same time, their policies don’t form a coherent plan or vision for our nation; some are clearly reactionary, others are pet projects of ministers, and some are the same old dreadful drivel that civil servants have tried to serve up for over a decade. Despite knowing all this, though, I still feel that a few weeks back, we saw the veil being lifted publicly.
The PM’s own words at PMQS have been overlooked with the focus on the quagmire he has got himself into over the Mandelson appointment and Doyle peerage.
To recap, the PM stated, “My legacy is changing my party and winning a general election.” He then went on to pat himself on the back - “I delivered a landslide victory for our party. Only four people have ever led the Labour Party to victory at a general election, and I am one of them.”
He doesn’t want or hope that his legacy is centred on what he will achieve in government for the country, or the condition he wants to leave the country in.
There was no mention of values and ideals or anything tangible that could cement long-term change and improvement for our nation.
Instead, his answer defined success as acquiring office, not exercising it. In that moment, he effectively said the mission was getting into Downing Street - the governing part is secondary. Or to put it another way, power for power's sake.
Keir Starmer has revealed why he stood in the 2024 general election - and it's terrifying - Michelle Donelan
|Getty Images
Successful prime ministers, whether you agreed with them or not, governed with a sense of purpose. Tony Blair arrived with a clear agenda to remake the country.
Margaret Thatcher had an unapologetic economic project she pursued with conviction. A Prime Minister who sees winning power as the end goal rather than the beginning inevitably governs differently.
Decisions become reactive, priorities blur, and long-term direction gives way to short-term management. And that is exactly what’s happening - the current cabal is driving our nation into the ground and making us look like a laughing stock on the international stage.
But I can’t be the only one who was left a tad taken aback that we have a PM who believes he has achieved his life’s work and secured his legacy.
We need a PM hungry with ambition, striving un relentlessly for our nation and unsatisfied by results - seeking to make our country better, for us.
Starmer, by contrast, often gives the impression of a caretaker or a middle manager who is waiting for Head Office to instruct him, forgetting he is Head Office. And now we know why - it isn’t just that he has the political antenna of a fish - it’s that he thinks his legacy is already secured.
The hard, cold reality is Britain is being governed by a party whose primary goal was to secure power - and the Prime Minister had the gall to admit it in Parliament.
More From GB News