Keir starmer: all sausage, no sizzle | thearticle

Sir Keir Starmer delivered his first party conference speech as Prime Minister yesterday, aiming to boost Labour’s morale. And you can’t fault the speech for what it said. It was a sort of

“listicle” of unconnected achievements: his fight with the Left, a “Hillsborough Law”, homes for veterans, his victory over far-Right riots, apprenticeships to tackle youth unemployment, and

a nod to fiscal restraint. It was a speech filled with individual points, but where was the narrative? It felt more like a catalogue of policy soundbites rather than a cohesive vision for

the country’s future. While you can’t really fault much of what he said, the speech still lacked something crucial: vision. Starmer has been excellent at pointing out what’s wrong with

Britain: terrible public services, a mismanaged economy, issue after issue after issue… and he’s right. There’s a school of thought that this constant focus on the negative is what’s

bringing the country down, but I don’t think that’s the case. What we’re lacking is a sense of direction, other than a headlong charge to make things better. What do Starmer’s better times

look like? Even after his big speech, we are none the wiser. Starmer badly needs to paint us a picture. I don’t think he can, though, because he doesn’t know what that picture looks like.

Vision is essential for any leader to galvanise a nation—Margaret Thatcher had it, and she expressed it clearly. Whether you agreed with her or not, she had a plan for Britain, and her

tenacity pulled the country forward, albeit at great cost to some. Tony Blair had his own vision too. It’s probably best expressed as “Cool Britannia”, which may seem quaint and a bit silly

now. But in 1997 it captured the mood of the country, giving people something to rally around. One of the most interesting aspects of Starmer’s speech was not what he said, but what he left

out. For example, there was virtually nothing on foreign policy, despite his extensive travel around Europe and the rest of the world. Why? Perhaps he’s too afraid to talk about his vision

for Britain’s post-Brexit relationship with Europe. He claims he’s unafraid of unpopularity, but he’s avoiding any mention of Brexit, likely because reopening that debate would stir a

political hornet’s nest that no leader seems brave enough to confront, even if that nettle desperately needs grasping. There was also a glaring absence of any real economic vision, with much

of the focus being deferred to Rachel Reeves’ Budget in a month’s time. Starmer seems not to understand that he should be laying out the vision now. The Budget is merely a tool to implement

it. Starmer lacks the type of visionary leadership that could energise the country. Perhaps, after the chaotic leadership of Boris Johnson, this could be seen as a strength. Johnson was a

skilled communicator and campaigner, but his rhetoric was hollow, full of grandiose promises that could never be delivered. Starmer is the opposite of this. Where Johnson often resorted to

bold, sweeping claims that excited people but rarely materialised, Starmer focuses on practicality and crisis management, making him more of a technocrat. Starmer would never allow such a

breakdown in discipline or accountability as was seen during Johnson’s time in office, exemplified by the infamous garden parties during lockdown. His technocratic nature ensures order and

stability, but that same quality limits his ability to inspire or radically shift public opinion. Unlike Johnson, who decisively shifted the political landscape by aligning himself with the

Brexiteers, Starmer is unlikely to ever galvanise a debate by taking one side so boldly that it moves the dial. Johnson’s gamble with Brexit won, in the end, him the premiership and cemented

a political legacy, for better or worse. But Starmer’s cautious managerial style means he is less likely to make such bold, defining choices. There will never be a moment when Starmer

throws his weight behind one side of a major issue and dramatically changes the course of a debate. He’s more inclined towards steady governance, crisis management, and ensuring things run

smoothly. While that might provide the stability people crave after a period of chaos, it won’t rally a nation or inspire the kind of sweeping change that leaders like Thatcher or Blair

achieved. Starmer’s speech was full of what Labour has already achieved, but listing accomplishments isn’t enough. It never will be, no matter how long a list it is. A shopping list for a

boeuf bourguignon doesn’t guarantee you a delicious stew. His achievements, however commendable, lack a compelling narrative, a vision for where Britain should go next. Thatcher had a vision

that transformed the UK, sometimes brutally. Blair, with New Labour, crafted a narrative that gave the nation a sense of identity, even if, in retrospect, some find it cringe-worthy.

Starmer is neither a visionary like Thatcher, nor a storyteller like Blair, nor a charismatic communicator like Johnson. But he needs to learn from each of them. Britain needs more than

stability and competent management—it needs a sense of purpose, something to strive towards. Without that, people won’t be motivated to follow, and the country risks drifting aimlessly.

Stability is necessary, but it’s not enough to inspire a nation.         A MESSAGE FROM THEARTICLE _We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an important

contribution to make, one that’s needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout these hard economic times. So please, make a donation._