He never promised us a rose garden – but Keir Starmer’s ‘doom and gloom’ speech was partisan finger pointing

In a recent speech, British prime minister Keir Starmer vowed to fix the “rotten foundations” of the country. Addressing an audience of workers and public servants invited to the garden of 10 Downing Street, Starmer positioned his government as one of service, promising to tackle the deep-seated issues plaguing Britain.

“When there is deep rot in the heart of a structure, you can’t just cover it up,” Starmer declared. The message was that Britain needs fundamental change rather than quick fixes.

Starmer painted a grim picture of the state of the nation. He cited a £22 billion black hole in public finances as “the inheritance the last government left us”. Speaking of how he planned to deliver justice following shocking scenes of civil unrest, he drew parallels between the recent riots and those of 2011, arguing that the situation has worsened to the extent that he didn’t know if there was room in prisons to house the people being convicted.

He even suggested, without evidence, that people went out to cause violence because they knew they probably wouldn’t be punished. “They saw the cracks in our society after 14 years of populism and failure – and they exploited them,” he claimed.

Starmer’s diagnosis of Britain’s problems will resonate with many but his approach risks oversimplifying complex issues. By framing the country’s challenges primarily as the result of recent Conservative governance, Starmer overlooks the deeper, more entrenched ideological foundations that have contributed to these problems over decades.

Starmer’s speech was powerful in its imagery of rot and decline but he faces a significant challenge in translating rhetoric into meaningful action. The Labour party’s historical complicity in promoting the neoliberal policies that helped bring the country to its current state cannot be ignored when we talk of “rotten foundations”.

In the 1990s, under the leadership of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, Labour embraced many aspects of the neoliberal economic model, including privatisation of public services and a light-touch approach to financial regulation. Starmer might want to find a new economic model but is, as of yet, taking little action to bring one to life. The promised Great British Energy and railway nationalisation would barely scratch the surface in terms of reversing decades of privatisation – including in key sectors such as prisons, healthcare and probation.

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

The irony of Starmer’s position becomes even more apparent when we consider Labour’s historical role in shaping public perception of economic alternatives. Starting with Blair’s “third way”, Labour has played a significant part in framing critiques of neoliberalism as politically unfeasible and economically irresponsible. Blair’s approach, presented as pragmatic and non-radical, effectively narrowed the scope of acceptable political discourse.

This strategy did yield some short-term gains, yet it simultaneously helped entrench the very “rotten foundations” Starmer now decries. Blair made it difficult for subsequent Labour leaders, including Starmer, to propose fundamental changes without facing accusations of extremism or economic recklessness.

Fiscal rules

Starmer’s task is further complicated by Labour’s recent political strategy. He and his chancellor, Rachel Reeves, bound themselves to restrictive fiscal rules in order to appear “electable”, even in the face of a public crying out for significant change. Now they have hardly any levers to pull to turn things around.

Starmer finds himself in a paradoxical position: railing against a system that his own party helped to normalise and defend. This legacy presents a significant challenge to any genuine attempt at addressing the deep-seated issues in British society and economy.

A partisan approach, while politically expedient, may ultimately hinder progress towards addressing the systemic issues facing the UK. By focusing heavily on the failures of recent Conservative governments, Starmer misses an opportunity to engage in a more nuanced discussion about the structural changes needed to address Britain’s challenges.

A more constructive approach would involve acknowledging the complex interplay of historical, economic and political factors that have led to the current situation. This could include recognising the role of both major parties in shaping economic policies and addressing the limitations of the neoliberal economic model in ensuring equitable growth and social cohesion.

Starmer’s speech does hint at some awareness of these complexities. He speaks of making “unpopular decisions” for the long-term good of the country and warns of short-term pain. However, without a more comprehensive critique of the underlying economic system, these sacrifices risk being seen as merely austerity by another name.

Indeed, given his focus on the social unrest and the failures it exposed in the justice system, Starmer’s speech missed an opportunity to offer the kind of truly progressive vision for criminal justice reform that had been implied by his appointment of James Timpson as a prisons minister.

Instead he packaged up the state of Britain’s prisons with a long list of other problems the Conservatives left him. We learnt that Starmer doesn’t “want” to release prisoners early but had to because of the Conservatives.

Instead of acknowledging the root causes of social unrest, including economic inequality and lack of opportunity, he bundled his response in with warnings of austerity-like measures to come. He risks perpetuating a cycle of social unrest and punitive responses, rather than fostering the transformative change needed to create a more just and equitable society.

His approach to addressing Britain’s “rotten foundations” inadvertently traps him in a narrative of doom and gloom. By embracing a more nuanced critique, beyond partisan finger pointing, that acknowledges Labour’s historical role in shaping these foundations, Starmer could have crafted a more hopeful and forward-looking message. This would not only offer a path for genuine systemic change but also provide a compelling vision for voters.

Starmer’s commitment to addressing Britain’s fundamental problems is commendable, however, his current rhetorical approach risks perpetuating the very partisan divisions he seeks to overcome. The challenge for Starmer and Labour is to find a way to critique the failures of recent governments while also honestly acknowledging their own role in creating these systemic problems.