The UK needs Starmer the charmer to step up

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is in Rome to meet Italian officials about plans to tackle illegal migration. Getty

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has a populism dilemma that is central to how he will lead his country.

His Labour party won a huge majority off the back of the failure of the previous Conservative government to deliver its agenda, which was based on discontent with the status quo. But with the fringe right-wing Reform UK party and a separate left-wing alliance gaining toeholds in Parliament, there is a kernel of European-style populist growth in British politics.

For the sharpest brains on the Labour side, how to scotch the appeal of these pop-up parties is the biggest issue from now to the 2029 general election.

The first few months of the new government have been dominated by Mr Starmer and Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves repeating how bad the country’s finances have become. This narrative both shows the iron will of the new government and scotches the credibility of the already well-beaten Conservatives.

The Starmer administration has hung tough in the face of a row over the removal of a £300 (almost $400) annual payment issued to pensioners for fuel in the winter. Stories are legion of how richer pensioners spend this money as a yearly treat from the government. Removing it, however, has unleashed pressure over the less-well-off elderly who won’t be able to turn on heating systems for much of the colder days.

An introspective debate, fuelled by reporting from the Westminster cockpit, makes it seem as if Mr Starmer’s army of MPs are beating themselves up over the issue. But new Labour MP Josh Simons doesn’t have much time for his party colleagues who are rebelling over their government’s decision.

Britain braces for bleak budget as Starmer lays out spending plans

01:25

By taking on the social and economic issues that get under their skin, the Labour party can prove its credentials as the champions of progress

A former think tanker, Mr Simons last week advised his colleagues to get out and fight for votes and not turn their energies inward so early in the Parliament. An overly technocratic approach to governance could represent a trap that populists can exploit, and Mr Simons warns that voters do not want politicians to bog them down with thoughts on “how to reform the Cabinet Office”. Instead, they need to be convinced that the Starmer government is on their side.

By taking on the social and economic issues that get under their skin, the Labour party can prove its credentials as the champions of progress. More than 50 MPs – including Mr Simons – are among a sizeable group of legislators who want the government to place more emphasis on a positive vision for the future.

It is a view not just limited to the sharpest members of the new intake. Paul Johnson, the country’s leading economist, yesterday had a go at Labour’s misplaced priorities. In a recent newspaper article, he called on the government to stop wasting time with diversionary issues such as the winter fuel allowance and focus on the bigger issues the party campaigned on, like social care. “Time to get serious. Please,” he declared.

Why this comes back to populist concerns is that if the dominant mood among voters encompasses suspicion and anger, then a government that is simply focused on the delivery of targets is not going to chime with this electorate.

What is frustrating for many is that the Labour campaign team’s leadership has experience of this in fighting past battles against extremist politics at a local government level. With a concentration on street-level improvements, Labour was able to squeeze out far-right campaigners.

The same trick is now available at a national level if Labour can prove to the people that it is making a difference in the provision of housing, tackling the deficit of elderly care, reducing healthcare bottlenecks and making child care more affordable for the younger echelon of the workforce.

• 

  Migrants clamber aboard a small boat off the beach at Gravelines, northern France. All photos: PA

• 

  Dozens of migrants waded into the water at Gravelines and pulled themselves onto the crowded boat on Monday morning

• 

  Men, women and young children, some wearing life jackets, could be seen walking across the beach

• 

  Items of clothing were left after people boarded the small boat

• 

  Migrants leave Gravelines aboard the small boat

• 

  Some families walked from the sea as others walked out into the water to be picked up by the inflatable boat

• 

  People are escorted by French police officers as they walk across the beach.

For those watching Mr Starmer’s evolution in power, a trip to Italy this week could prove instructive. The meetings with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni will show how far he is willing to go along with the European populist wave as the UK leader.

Yesterday, the pair discussed how the UK could learn from Italy’s decision to cut deals with countries such as Tunisia and Albania to process migrants arriving in Italy by illegal boat journeys but not allowed to stay there while their claims are made. On some days, as with this past weekend, as many as 800 people can arrive in the UK by dinghy across the English Channel.

The visible breakdown of border controls in the UK, US and Europe is one of the most powerful accelerants that populists have relied on to come to power. But getting to grips with the issue means that Mr Starmer must tread a delicate path.

On the one hand, he aligns with the policies of the European crackdown that has hardened borders and increased deportations. On the other, he disavows the prescriptions of the UK parties engaged in an arms race of ever tougher measures against asylum seekers. The choices Mr Starmer is making in his first 100 days matter to the experiences that ordinary voters will gain from his government.

It is not just about taking a Mr Fixit approach to the challenges that the UK faces. It is about showing how the vision is there to make the country work better in the interests of the voters who threw the previous lot out.