Starmer's downfall: How the PM plummeted from his historic election win to getting his marching orders
Keir Starmer’s response to the rise of Reform hastened his downfall, despite his resounding election victory two years ago.
Less than a month of taking office, Keir Starmer’s government announced plans to cut winter fuel allowances for pensioners.
A Scottish Labour figure told me at the time that “I’m sure it’s part of a bigger plan and shouldn’t be seen in isolation”.
“Otherwise we’re in deep trouble before we’ve even started”, the source jokingly added.
From the outset, Sir Keir’s administration was riddled with errors, a failure to read the room and a lack of confidence that allowed Nigel Farage to gain a foothold in UK and Scottish politics.
It is hard to think of another government anywhere in the world that would come into office and, despite the obviously difficult fiscal outlook, actively paint a picture that we cannot fix this mess. A failure to give that confidence to business and industry plagued Labour’s ability to grow the economy that has stunted any of their plans for change coming to fruition.
READ MORE: Why Andy Burnham as PM would not be a silver bullet to take away Scottish Labour's troubles
Scots voted in huge numbers for Labour to remove the Tories from office. But senior Scottish Labour MSPs and strategists admitted during that 2024 general election campaign that the public were not enthusiastic about the man they were happy to help put into Downing Street.
He was regarded as cold and robotic and on more occasions than I care to remember, Sir Keir used the same anecdote about a young girl in Glasgow who he was shocked to learn could not read or write, complete with an impression. It was an illustration of his failure to connect on a human level, and at the third time of hearing it, it was toe-curling to listen to.
The resounding victory that handed Labour a historic victory and Westminster mandate also did the unthinkable - it put Anas Sarwar in a position in the polls to form the next Scottish government two years later.
But fast forward to now, it seems, at first glance unbelievable that the PM has been forced out by his MPs.
There were always going to be tough decisions for Sir Keir in government. We knew the finances were grim and it was clear that unpopular decisions would be necessary. But where Sir Keir’s government has angered people is those hard and horrid choices have not been justified by delivery on promises that tangibly have made lives better. In the case of soaring energy bills, the situation has got worse.
For the man who secured an impressive majority less than two years ago, policies including the winter fuel payments, a failure to axe the controversial two-child benefit cap until the SNP tried to force through their own plans and the hated national insurance employer contributions angered people up and down the UK.
The rise in popularity of Reform in response to the apathy of choices made by the Labour government appeared to make things even worse. In attempts to placate would-be Reform voters, Sir Keir’s government took a tougher approach to immigration - a strategy that horrified many within Scottish Labour.
Reform, since entering Holyrood last month, have used every opportunity to try and divide communities by describing new Scots as “strangers”. But Sir Keir’s now infamous speech, he later retracted, where he warned the UK could become “an island of strangers” without a tougher immigration regime, gave legitimacy to that dangerous narrative.
The beginning of the end for Sir Keir really ramped up with the revelations around Peter Mandelson and his friendship with the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Lacking in personality, Sir Keir’s assets, we were told, included a polished judgement. But the revelation that his government approved Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador despite not passing vetting and concerns being raised about the relationship mounted that perception almost laughable, if it wasn’t so serious.
The palpable anger over the Mandelson scandal, particularly on behalf of the Epstein victims, changed the tone of frustration with Sir Keir’s government - an attitude he never recovered from.
Not one to miss an opportunity, Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar launched a genuinely jaw-dropping moment when in February of this year, hot off the heels of the Mandelson revelations, he called for Sir Keir to pack his bags and leave Downing Street.
Mr Sarwar “knifing Starmer in the front” would have had more impact had anyone at Westminster followed his call for a resignation. Instead, it looked like the move of a man desperate to revive his dwindling chances of winning May’s Holyrood election.
But what Mr Sarwar’s botched attempt did was keep the idea of Sir Keir being sent his jotters alive and well. The narrative of a prime minister on borrowed time didn’t go away.
Following a horrendous set of election results across Scotland, Wales and England last month, UK health secretary Wes Streeting, arguably a man even less popular than the PM, quit in a failed attempt to challenge him for his job. But what that move did was open the door for others to follow Mr Streeting out the door, including well-regarded defence secretary John Healey, whose scathing resignation letter over a lack of defence spending, signalled the end was in sight for Sir Keir.
Alongside this, Andy Burnham was plotting a route back to Westminster after being blocked from standing in the Gorton and Denton by-election. After Josh Simons resigned to hand Mr Burnham a by-election and a route back to Westminster - which must be one of the most humiliating acts by an MP in living memory - the mayor of Greater Manchester was able to brush aside a challenge from Reform.
Crucially, and what had been lacking from talk of Sir Keir being ousted, Mr Burnham returning to the Commons gave Labour a leader that could potentially succeed him.
Sir Keir may still be wondering where it all went wrong, given his huge election victory. But in an increasingly-impatient political landscape and rising threat from Reform, it was always a matter of when rather than if, he was given his marching orders.
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.