Starmer's Mission

 Starmer's Mission

The idea here came to me while witnessing the bizarre process of the media trying (over the weekend 7 - 8th Feb) to squeeze a political crisis out of the Epstein-Mandelson affair, and from listening yesterday to "The Rest is Politics" podcast from the gifted Campbell-Stewart duo titled "Is it 'Game Over' for Starmer?" (9th Feb 2026). And (to be fair to myself) from my own posting of 14th Jan on the previously manufactured 'crisis' over ID cards [1].  It is not primarily my own, but I am endorsing it.

My impression is that Sir Keir Starmer's mission is to bring straight-forward honesty into politics. His earlier successful career as a lawyer shows a consistent attraction to justice and decency. His calling (i.e. the force that drives him) was not concerned with I.D, cards, nor with fiscal deficits.  His stance is moral.  It is barely political. If forced to take sides, perhaps he would say that slightly too large a fraction of the wealth generated in the country goes to the bosses, the gamblers and the cheats, and that advantage is constantly being taken of the disadvantaged and ill-educated working class. Political finesse is not his forte; nor is finance. His forte is justice. 

However, like all of us, he may be touched to some extent by ambition. I mean bankers and gamblers want to get rich, scientists want to the the first to discover truths, authors want to be read. And politicians (doubtless) would like to see themselves in command of a well-ordered outfit bringing justice, wealth and happiness to the nation.  

It is embarrassing to see philosophers like Newton and Leibnitz scrabbling over priorities. Similarly, I wince when a chancellor says " 'I' have decided to increase the duty on petrol by a penny." How pompous!  Why not say "We have decided......"?  For it should be the Cabinet that decides, and takes responsibility. 

It should not be part of Starmer's duty to decide on Corporation Tax rates, or allowances for 3-children families. If he wants to dictate to the cabinet on such issues he is indeed touched with madness. But it could be that he gets cajoled into taking the blame for other people's mistakes. Other things being equal, stability is good, dithering is bad.  

As Rory Stewart says in the podcast (c. minute 25), what the country surely wants is for Wes Streeting to use all his drive and initiative to sort the NHS, Peter Kyle to take charge of business 'Growth', and Rachel Reeves to balance public spending against taxation. Perhaps there is also a role for younger members of the team like Allin-Kahn. 

There is an important two-way communications job for the whips. To avoid a back-bench revolutions, it is not sufficient for whips merely to explain Government policy to the benches. The back-benchers should know, discuss, and own those policies, and explain their views to the cabinet. 

Starmer's rôle is to be 'honest' and 'decent'. And to remind his team that "England expects that everyone will do their duty". It would be a bold move to abolish 'Prime Ministers Question Time', but that may be what is needed. The Prime Minister deflecting each question to his appropriate lieutenant.

References:
[1]  https://occidentis.blogspot.com/2026/01/digital-id-cards-and-bbc.html