It is time for Keir Starmer to deliver – but Labour must resist a lurch to the left – UK Times

As Winston Churchill said of parliamentary politics, Keir Starmer’s enemies don’t have the one great advantage that incumbency bestows on him. He can act, they can only talk. What, then, should he do to rebuild his premiership?

The prime minister is set to defy his critics in the Labour Party and claim he is the one best placed to “face up to the big challenges for this country” as he delivers a career-defining speech to save his premiership on Monday morning.

“Strength through fairness. It’s a core Labour argument. And you will see those values writ large in the King’s Speech. And you will see hope, urgency and exactly whose side we are on.”

He will add: “People need hope. We will face up to the big challenges and we will make the big arguments.”

Policy is something surprisingly absent from the febrile speculation about the Labour leadership in recent days. It has almost entirely centred on the various personalities involved, and their ideological differences with the prime minister.

Even at its best, the argument tends to get tangled up with the psephological conundrum of which is Labour’s most potent current threat – the Green Party or Reform UK – and therefore which way the government should tack to win back the half of its voters who’ve switched their loyalties since the last general election.

As things stand, Catherine West, a backbencher who has volunteered to be a “stalking horse”, hasn’t managed to find her way out of the paddock. That could all change very quickly if she finds the 81 MPs needed to launch a challenge. Labour MPs believe she is closing in on the number of parliamentarians needed.

As it is, Angela Rayner issued what amounted to an ultimatum on Sunday afternoon, calling this Sir Keir’s “last chance” to change direction. She demanded more economic powers for regional mayors, a higher minimum wage and that Labour be “unafraid to promote new forms of public, community and cooperative ownership across the board”, as well as backing Andy Burnham’s return.

It would take a spectacular leap of the imagination to conclude that the Labour Party is unpopular because it is not left-wing enough. Keir Starmer must therefore stay true to both his centrist principles and the manifesto on which he and his party were elected. No amount of nudging from Ms Rayner should change that.

It is for the prime minister to settle questions about the future and set the course for the next phase of his administration. He has already done some of this, moving immediately to make it clear he won’t be removed without a scrap. He will have ample further opportunities to command the headlines for all the right reasons in the coming days.

A “reset” speech on Monday, the King’s Speech on Wednesday, and no doubt more media attention, should focus on what the government will “do” next. As has been painfully evident for some time, Sir Keir’s government lacks the kind of “narrative” that can sustain a reforming administration through times such as these – tough decisions but ones that will be vindicated and promote the well-being of the people and the national interest. There will be a programme of fresh legislation that will highlight priorities.

That gives the prime minister and his party something more consequential to chew on than how Andy Burnham is going to get back into parliament when there is no such thing as a safe Labour seat. It is ironic that the very electoral weakness that makes Sir Keir’s leadership so precarious also makes it much harder for his most dangerous rival to usurp him.

So much for the speeches and the talk. The prime minister and his ministers must also act. Too much of the circular discussion within Labour is about whether it should be more left-wing or tack to the centre, when the simple truth is that it needs to demonstrate competence and – in the dread phrase – “deliver”.

Sir Keir and his government, in other words, would not now be in such a mess if they had avoided such blunders as cutting the pensioners’ winter fuel allowance or trying to be too clever and appointing Peter Mandelson to be ambassador in a Washington. More to the point, Sir Keir would not now be fighting for his job if he had indeed “smashed the gangs”, stopped the small boats and closed the “asylum hotels”. The public would not be so disenchanted if the “number one priority” he set himself – restoring economic growth – had been achieved.

The same goes for reducing NHS waiting lists, rebuilding Britain’s defences, boosting trade with the EU and protecting people from the worst effects of the continuing cost of living crisis. Europe has to be at the centre of these efforts, making the case for how closer links can make Britons better off and more secure in a more protectionist and unsafe world.

In some of these areas, there have been successes – too little trumpeted, but there is no point in denying the failures. Sir Keir’s opponents and enemies, inside and outside his own party, will only be quieted if he can make a tangible difference to people’s lives and address the voters’ concerns rather than leaving them feeling ignored. The elections last week were the mother of all protest votes, but, as Sir Keir points out, it’s doubtful that a majority of people want Zack Polanski or Nigel Farage to be prime minister of Britain.

That, clearly, doesn’t mean they want Sir Keir to keep the job. He needs to prove he is up to the challenge, can get results and make the “change” he promised less than two years ago. That way his narrative almost writes itself – if he’s still got time.