The below content first appeared in Politics.co.uk’s Week-in-Review newsletter, sign up for free and never miss this article.
The 100th day of this Labour government has arrived with a deluge of scheduled commentary about Keir Starmer’s no-longer-nascent premiership — and not all of it glowing with spirited commendation.
The parliamentary rebellions, the accusations of cronyism, the infighting at the heart of power, the petty scandals, the vituperative briefings and the dismal polling dips are political ailments generally reserved for administrations in their death throes. Westminster has seen plenty of those in recent years — the symptoms diagnose themselves.
After all, the defining irony of Labour’s 100-day “milestone” is that this government feels anything but fresh. Critical commentators duly deride a Starmer epoch as if Labour rule has been everlasting. Meanwhile, the government’s mountainous majority damns it. There are no parliamentary obstacles to overcome; no excuses.
Medical Defence Union sponsors NHS Parliamentary Awards
Humanists UK welcomes introduction of Private Member’s Bill on Assisted Dying
That is the picture painted by Westminster’s collective reminiscing this morning. “Starmer’s first 100 days couldn’t have gone worse”, argues The Spectator. “A very wobbly start”, chimes The Economist. The New Statesman, Starmerism’s in-house journal, opines on “100 days that shook Labour”.
There is, of course, the natural counter-argument — courageously advanced by Labour’s Starmtrooper infantry this week.
“This week marks the first 100 days of our new Labour government”, leader of the House of Commons Lucy Powell boasted proudly on Thursday.
She continued: “The work of change has begun. I remind the House that we have made fiscal responsibility an Act, so that Liz Truss can never happen again. We have set up GB Energy, lifted the moratorium on onshore wind, invested in carbon capture and storage, and set up the national wealth fund.
“We have set ambitious new house building targets, and are ending no-fault evictions and giving new rights to renters. We are bringing our railways back into public ownership, and providing new powers to stop river pollution.
“We have ended the doctors’ strike so we can get the waiting lists down, kept our promise to Figen Murray on Martyn’s law, ended one-word Ofsted judgments, set up the border security command, and taken swift action on riots. We are fixing the prisons crisis that the last government left behind. We are paving the way for better buses across the country. We have tightened the rules on MPs’ second jobs, and we are modernising parliament and reforming the House of Lords.”
Some of these achievements, however, might be better judged when actually delivered. Housing targets must be hit. Investment must yield returns. A border command must command the border. And Powell’s extensive use of the present participle form (bringing, providing, fixing, etc.) suggests much is still a work in progress.
Still, this is perfectly natural for a government elected only months ago — as is, in fairness, the odd misjudgment and misstep. But what is most striking about Labour’s early woes, 100 days in, is how well-developed they are: media stories depict a regime riven with dysfunction and struggling to seize the moment. Nor does Powell’s prolix of purported successes answer that most pressing question: what is the point of this Labour government?
***Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.***
The Starmer-Tory feedback loop
Politically, the outfit with the most to gain from Labour’s travails — and the media’s codification of them today — is the Conservative Party. As Labour comes to terms, erringly, with the seriousness of government, Tory politicians are enjoying their stay on the sidelines with vengeful sadism. Indeed, despite some consternation this week about leadership contest chicanery (which may or may not have thwarted James Cleverly’s candidacy), the vibes in the 121 MP-strong party are good — and improving.
Perhaps the greatest indication of the Conservative Party’s growing confidence is its two leadership finalists. Both Kemi Badenoch and Robert Jenrick represent pure, self-indulgent expressions of Conservative ideology. Together, they suggest the party is embracing radicalism in opposition, not concessionary moderation.
Now, one wonders if the Conservative Party would have pursued this path if Starmer’s government remained in the ascendant.
With Labour still riding high politically, might the Tories have tracked towards it with a figure like Cleverly — or fellow moderate Tom Tugendhat? Both Badenoch and Jenrick have pledged to relentlessly maul Labour as Tory leader; if Starmer’s political defences seemed stronger, would MPs doubt their brazen ambition?
Moreover, do Labour’s failings, 100 days in, effectively alter a Conservative leader’s purpose this parliament? If Starmer is self-destructing, should greater emphasis be placed on the arguably more existential threat posed by Reform UK? Does a right-wing leader, after 100 days of unsteady Starmerism, simply make more sense?
These are, I think, revealing questions. And unknowable as their answers may be, it is logical that Labour’s distress is reshaping the realms of possibility Conservatives look towards this parliament.
Badenoch vs Jenrick: The Conservative turn to radicalism is fraught with pitfalls
Is the Conservative Party deluding itself?
The recent collapse of the Tories’ 2019 majority has (rightly) been taken as proof of a volatile electorate — one willing to surmount seemingly insurmountable governments. This, combined with Starmer’s woes, has prompted some Conservative politicians to conclude their party stands, once more, on the cusp of power.
But the tales Conservatives are now telling themselves could prove deeply self-destructive in time. Confidence, in short, is not a luxury opposition parties can afford to indulge in.
Winning an election after a single term in opposition is a trick that very few Leaders of the Opposition pull off. Electorally, the Conservative Party would be utterly mistaken to think that it can rely on Starmer’s difficulties and merrily ride the coattails of media criticism to recovery. It’s a fact worth stressing and stressing again: very rarely in British politics does decline lead immediately to resurgence.
There is, however, plenty of precedent for a party becoming over-confident in opposition and scuppering long-term ambition in favour of self-indulgent, short-term gain. The joint selection of Jenrick and Badenoch by MPs, indeed, speaks not only to a party cheery about its prospects this parliament — but one in denial about the verdict delivered of it by the electorate.
The Conservative Party, after all, is in opposition to repent for its sins in government — not so it can pursue some inscrutable ideological side-quest. And yet the ostensible strategy of the next Conservative leader, at this stage, seems to be to berate Starmer — according to long-held Tory instinct — until the polls turn.
That may work in the short term — and a wave of enthusiasm in November could prefigure some Conservative-Labour “crossover” moments in the coming months. But a sustainable poll lead will only be established when the Conservatives’ standing and prestige is restored. To do so, the Tory MPs need to rethink their instincts — not trust in them.
The next Conservative leader, suffice it to say, would be well-advised to balance its attacks on Labour with a genuine attempt at soul-searching. A successful stint in opposition, with the media spotlight so coveted, no less than relies on striking the right strategic balance between outward-facing criticism and introspective contemplation.
That said, attacking Labour on every issue, be it totemic or minute, will be the easy option. The ideological balance of the Conservative Party is precarious at best — and irretrievably antagonistic at worst. An incoming Tory leader might conclude, as the day-to-day dilemmas of party management dawn, that pillorying Starmer is the best way to inspire unity. Managing a party with such sharp (and relatively fresh) regicidal instincts will be arduous, of course. Easy answers, equally, will prove a distraction from the necessary but virtuous graft of opposition.
***Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.***
How Jenrick and Badenoch could trigger a One Nation Conservative revolt
Keir Starmer (accidently) sets a trap
In some senses then, Keir Starmer has unthinkingly laid a political trap for his Conservative opponents — one, at this juncture, that they are sleepwalking blithely towards.
Now, this pitfall grows wider and deeper still when one considers the possibility that Starmer, at some point, might actually get his act together as prime minister.
Sue Gray, to put it mildly, was a net drag on Labour’s performance in government. It is easy to lampoon an administration as maladroit and dithering when it comes to the deposition of problem individuals. But Starmer moved at pace once it became clear that Gray’s position was untenable.
Of course, Gray’s excision won’t in and of itself correct Labour’s early missteps. But it was surely necessary to create some space so a new, more overtly political operation, might. Morgan McSweeney’s strategic duty, right now, is in effect damage limitation. But Labour has reason to feel hopeful with him again by Starmer’s side.
Sue Gray’s ruthless ouster points to pivotal moment for Keir Starmer
So, what happens to the Conservative Party if McSweeney, in time, succeeds in sharpening Labour’s political edge? What happens if the Tory bubble, swelled with political hubris, bursts? What kind of tumult is then triggered?
Starmer may have had 100 difficult days — but he has 1700 more to right them. The Conservative Party would be wise to hedge its bets and assume that Labour, in due course, will make meaningful progress in government. Then, even if Starmer continues to stumble, the Tory leader will win electoral credit for their introspective approach to the graft of opposition.
After all, if the Conservative Party continues to tread ponderously on Britons’ lives, how can the public conclude it has sufficiently changed?
In this regard, it is always worth ruminating on the fact that when the Conservatives were last blitzed into opposition, the party’s next prime minister was not actually in parliament.
Josh Self is Editor of Politics.co.uk, follow him on X/Twitter here.
Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.
Week-in-Review: The Conservative Party risks forgetting how loathed it is
