He The British government reaches the milestone of one hundred days of grace this weekendbut far from a honeymoon, its premiere has been a journey of ups and downs, avoidable errors and strategic restructuring, more typical of administrations that suffer the inevitable wear and tear of years in power. Keir Starmer’s entry into Number 10 Downing Street on July 5 conveyed an image of political purification, after 14 years of conservative hegemony and 24 dizzying months in which the United Kingdom had three different prime ministers. Although Starmer has already managed to double the mandate of one of them, Liz Truss, he has also discovered that not even the biggest electoral victory in almost three decades can mitigate the profound impact of the personal scrutiny, standards and expectations that official residency demands.
The first steps of the Executive were promising: the cabinet with the most women in history, the first time that the Ministry of Economy had a female name and a reformist vocation that fit perfectly with the era of change that had just begun. The landing for Starmer was not only, initially at least, soft, but he had the opportunity to project the feeling that the United Kingdom once again had a serious Government: international summits such as that of NATO in Washington, or that of the Political Community European Union in the county of Oxford, where the new prime minister served as host, contributed to strengthening that perception of professionalism so convenient for a country that seemed to leave behind the turbulent years of Brexit and the pandemic.
In fact, Starmer’s first big test was probably the one that best suited his profile. At the end of July, misinformation on the networks and fuel from the extreme right unleashed a wave of riots in much of the country, after the circulation of hoaxes that attributed the multiple stabbing that had claimed the lives of three girls to a migrant in an irregular situation between six and nine years old in the town of Southport (northwest England). For a leader who, before jumping into politics, had been director of the Prosecutor’s Office and who had managed a similar crisis in 2011, the trance allowed him to display his strengths and the citizens overwhelmingly approved his management, including his decision to cancel his family vacation to monitor developments.
However, the growing impression of a lack of materialization of ideas, reinforced by the questioned decision to wait until the end of October to present the first budgets (five months is an extraordinarily long period in the United Kingdom for a new administration), began to erode the image of an Executive that did not seem to know how to execute the reformist agenda promised during the campaign. Unpopular decisions such as withdrawing the universality of heating aid for pensioners, or maintaining the controversial limit of social benefits per child for two descendants, one of the measures most identified with austerity torycontributed to the disenchantment, so when the first big controversy arrived, Starmer was already affected.
After years of denouncing the conduct of conservatives in the opposition, especially the ethical laxity of leaders such as Prime Minister Boris Johnson found it difficult to explain handouts like free tickets to Taylor Swift, horse racing, thousands of pounds worth of suits and glasses for himself.or a contract to rent clothes for his wife, Victoria. Although it is not a problem of legality, since Starmer did not violate any rules and donations, as long as they are formally declared, are acceptable in the British system, the conflict entails danger because it is optical.
In politics, Appearances matter and when a leader bases his attack on the contrast between his own honorabilityity and ethical behavior of its rivals, any decision below these self-imposed standards becomes a weapon. That Starmer canceled the game to keep the homes of the elderly warm in winter, but accepted tickets worth thousands of pounds at events does not necessarily say anything about the Executive’s action, but it does send an uncomfortable message about the ethical equation of the premier.
Additionally, the evident internal battle between the key advisors of the premierreleased in full view of the media, suggests an unusual lack of control for an administration that has recently come to power. Last year’s recruitment of Sue Graya veteran of the Public Service who took on the investigation of the so-called partygate (the Downing Street party scandal during lockdown) as chief of staff (chief of staff, in English), one of the key positions in the British institutional organizational chart, lIt raised blisters among party strategists and the supposed mutual animosity tipped the fight in favor of whoever was the mastermind of the successful general election campaign, Morgan McSweeney.and resulted in a woman being the first casualty of the Government.
The departure of Gray, for some, the scapegoat, has opened a spigot that, however, offers a space of opportunity to deal with a dysfunction that has sunk Starmer’s popularity ratings below those of any prime minister in modern times. , with the exception of Truss, and even worse than those of the controversial Nigel Farage, patron of Brexit. Also Labor has fallen in the polls and in a recent survey appeared just one point above the Conservativesa formation that continues to search for identity after the worst electoral result in its history.
