LemonJam
Starmer is/was a consummate professional lawyer who rose to his DPS leadership role based on his legal career success and many years experience as a defence lawyer. Thus he had/has a cool, forensic, unemotional, evidence based decision making style. He believes in the rule of law and brought that to the table as PM. Thats is mainly what he brought. This helped shaped his success on the world stage but rendered him less equipped his to connect with his cabinet, MPs, party members, electorate, trade union affiliates and the media. Lack of. engagement with those partners made everything far more difficult and challenging and eventually led to his downfall.
His determination helped shaped the LP back to a position sufficiently fit for purpose to win the GE in 2024. Credit where credit is due. That same determination in removing the whip from MPs, who did not serve his cool calculated decisions at various times was alienating to some and thus he was never an alliance building leader.
Starmer came very late to politics, in his 50s, thus had few years to hone his political skills, lacked political experience, had little time develop the requisite skills to communicate with his electorate (his style was never engaging) lacked political experience to determine the best candidates to form a government (he chose RR as chancellor fgs), to engage with the civil service and treasury etc. He was. thus much more reliant than the majority of PMs on his advisors. His advisors were not chosen well and did not serve him well.
Starmer made decisions in his style of a rules based lawyer. rather than with the ability to understand the impact politically. He made some early decisions that backfired in context of his political naivety and lack of political nous. Politics is a febrile, unforgiving environment he was quickly on the back foot.
Thus the expectation that he would be a 'safe pair of hands' domestically quickly began to unscramble in the face of early mishaps. The electorate and media was quick to judge.
It can't be taken away from Starmer that he is a conscientious, ethical man that came to his role to serve. He, in leading his government achieved some successes as others have ably listed in earlier posts. He has served the UK well on the world stage as other posters have outlined. In febrile, geo political challenges and risks that is to his credit.
Yet some poor decisions, either ill thought through or not communicated well, out weighed the positives for many, too many. This disconnect gained momentum. His U turns frustrated many. The electorate, trade union affiliate supporters began to pull against him as a leader. His decision to appoint Mandelson increased the pull against him further. His decision, as part of NEC, to not allow AB to sand as an MP in G and D by election was politically naive as that increased the determination of AB. The recent local by elections and vote share capture of Reform UK was the last straw for detractors. and Starmer thus was now seen as vulnerable.
The need for change became inevitable to so many. Not every. one of course- but a large majority. AB's election in Makerfield presented the detractors with an apparent solution to facilitate the change in leadership so many seek. Starmer has applied his lawyer forensic consideration of this evidence over the weekend and the penny dropped. He is a honourable man and has decided to step down as a result. His speech this morning I felt was dignified and offered with good grace- to Strmer's credit.
AB will put himself forward as a contender. Streeting now will not (did he actually manage to secure 81% MP backers in the first place? No matter now- he can read the room!). Not many other contenders will mange to secure 81 MPs backers in a leadership contest vote, particularly now as so many will sway towards AB. It will not be a bloody contest, or drawn out - we thank Starmer for that.
That it is not immediate (thanks again Starmer) gives AB time to get on top of his brief- put ideas together- etc. Love him or loathe him there is no need for a GE (Farage is just chancing his arm and trying to get media headlines as he fully understands this fact) and there will not be a GE. We will have a new LP PM in post after the summer recess, poised and ready for a very very short honeymoon phase. The conference season will quickly follow. That presents opportunities (and challenges) for the new PM to hone and communicate priorities and direction of travel for and to the LP and the electorate for the next three years.
I suspect that will be AB. He is politically savvy and experienced. He is not perfect, no one is. But he has been round the block, is consummate in communicating to his electorate and the media in Grter Manchester and no reason to think he can not transfer his skills. He will not be unduly set back by lack of positive media support, will stand his ground, and will do as he has done for the past 9 years- build alliances and partnerships. Like Stramer- AB is similarly determined, ambitious and takes his political opportunities as they present. Unlike Starmer he will engage much better. he will not expect an easy ride- he can read the room. He is not divisive in approach.
Then the hard work begins. The new PM's MPs and cabinet must fully understand there are three years only to knuckle down and do the work. No further chances to change course. The electorate would not stand for that....
You can list as many great things that you think Starmer has achieved but if he is that great how come he was so unpopular that even his own party wanted him out?
