When Keir Starmer ascended to the leadership of the Labour Party, many hoped that he would bring a sense of calm, competence, and moral clarity after the turmoil of the Corbyn years.

Starmer presented himself as a serious alternative to the chaotic tenure of the Conservatives 14 years in pwoer. However, despite his victory in the general election and becoming Prime Minister, it is becoming increasingly clear that Starmer’s leadership lacks the ideological substance necessary for long-term success.

Starmerism, if it can even be called that, is failing faster than anyone anticipated. The cracks in his leadership are already showing, and it is likely that Starmer will be remembered as a one-time prime minister who struggled to deliver on his promises.

The first major problem with Starmer’s leadership is its lack of clear ideological direction. Throughout his time in opposition, Starmer positioned himself largely as a force of opposition to the Conservatives rather than as a leader with a clear vision for the country.

His strategy revolved around critiquing the government’s failures, from their handling of Brexit to their response to the COVID-19 pandemic, but it was often difficult to discern what Starmer himself stood for.

As I argued in my report for the Henry Jackson Society, The Prospective Foreign Policy of Sir Keir Starmer, his foreign policy approach is rooted more in vague platitudes than in any coherent doctrine. The same can be said for his domestic agenda. Starmer has repeatedly avoided taking firm stances on key issues, preferring to triangulate and appease both the left and right wings of his party. While this may have helped him win

leadership and navigate the tumultuous opposition benches, it is a strategy that will not work in government, where clear direction and conviction are needed.

A key example of Starmer’s failure to deliver on promises is his handling of immigration. One of the major issues facing the country is the ongoing crisis in the English Channel, where thousands of migrants are arriving in small boats. Starmer made bold claims during the election campaign, stating that he would “stop the boats” and “smash the gangs” responsible for smuggling people into the UK.

Yet, there is little indication that his government has any meaningful plan to achieve this. After abandoning the Rwanda plan, his promises to crack down on criminal gangs ring hollow without a comprehensive deterrent strategy.

Moreover, Starmer’s economic policies are already faltering. His flagship policy of scrapping non-dom status, which allows wealthy individuals to avoid paying taxes in the UK on their overseas earnings, was a key part of his campaign to create a fairer tax system. However, it is widely accepted that he will now reverse course on this policy after the Treasure indicated it will raise no money at all and will only result in wealth creating leaving the UK. Starmer’s economic platform, much like his immigration policy, is marked by half-measures and reversals, leaving the public confused and frustrated.

The situati on within his own party also points to his leadership’s fragility. Rosie Duffield’s recent resignation from the Labour Party

 was a damning indictment of Starmer’s lack of experience and political acumen. Duffield, a high-profile MP, accused Starmer of being out of touch with the concerns of ordinary people and highlighted his limited experience in the rough-and-tumble world of politics.

As she pointed out in her resignation letter, Starmer is one of the most inexperienced politicians to become Prime Minister in modern times. Unlike previous leaders, he did not hone his political skills on the backbenches, nor did he build a loyal base of supporters within the party.

His rise to power was largely based on his credentials as a former Director of Public Prosecutions, rather than on his political instincts or ideology. This inexperience is now showing in his handling of both his party and the government.

Starmer has struggled to maintain unity within Labour, with factions on both the left and right openly criticizing his leadership. The lack of clear ideological direction means that Starmer cannot rely on a coherent base of support, making him vulnerable to rebellion within his own ranks.

At the same time, his cautious, managerial style of governance has failed to inspire confidence in the public. Many voters who were drawn to his promise of competence and stability are now questioning whether he has the vision and drive needed to tackle the major challenges facing the country.

In the end, Keir Starmer’s downfall is likely to be his inability to deliver on the promises that got him elected. His lack of ideological substance, his reversals on key policies, and his inexperience as a political leader will make it difficult for him to build a lasting legacy.

The problems facing the UK — economic inequality, immigration, and political division — are complex and require bold, decisive action. Starmer’s cautious, reactive approach is ill-suited to the task at hand.

Unless there is a radical shift in his leadership, Keir Starmer will likely be a one-time Prime Minister. His tenure may be marked more by missed opportunities and unfulfilled promises than by any lasting achievements. In the end, Starmerism may be remembered as a brief, unsuccessful experiment in centrist pragmatism, doomed by its lack of conviction and vision.