What's Keir Starmer's big idea? He needs to tell us

Times

11 hours ago

On May 26, 1797, William Pitt the Younger was not having a good day. Just short of his 38th birthday but already a long-serving prime minister, he was woken in 10 Downing Street by artillery fire. The army at Woolwich arsenal had rioted, following a mutiny in the navy: extremely serious developments, since the country was at war with France.
Having issued instructions to suppress the riot, Pitt went into a cabinet meeting where it became clear that his only ally, Austria, was abandoning the war, leaving Britain alone. As the cabinet deliberated, the value of government debt fell to its lowest ever level on the markets.
Sending off urgent messages, he then went to the Commons for the rest of the day to debate an opposition motion on reforming elections, defending his domestic political agenda on the same day as momentous international events. Crucially, he also showed that his policies at home were coherent with the goal abroad of winning the war. The large parliamentary majority behind him did not waver.
Set against such an example, the explanation given by Sir Keir Starmer that he only focused on the rebellion against his welfare bill on Thursday because he was busy with Nato earlier in the week does not sit at the impressive end of the historical scale. He does not even depend, as Pitt did 230 years ago, on messages being conveyed by a ship or a horse — although the pace at which he and his team realised they were in trouble suggest that might not have made much difference.
Prime ministers have always had to deal with multiple crises on the same day. That is partly why the position came into existence in the first place, superseding the habit of isolated departments reporting separately to the crown. But the really vital part is not just being able to fit a lot into a day; it is drawing together the responses to all the issues into a governing idea, and thereby explaining to supporters, the country and the government itself what the purpose of its existence might be.
In the absence of such an idea, eloquently explained, prime ministers can become overwhelmed. Trying to deal with all the crises as if they are unconnected leads to exhaustion, loss of support and doing too little on each one to make the decisive difference. As he approaches his first anniversary in office, the PM should reflect that this is where he is heading.
There are many sensible policies in the defence review of last month, the industrial strategy of last week, the health strategy of this week and indeed, the welfare proposals that have gone from being a 'moral imperative' to being gutted in recent days. Yet we can all guess where this is going: the revival of defence will be choked by lack of money; the industrial plans will get so far but not match the scale of what is happening in other countries; the efforts to tackle obesity will make some difference but not a big enough one to stop the ballooning of the health budget; the growth of welfare spending will be only marginally slowed; and all that will mean more tax rises, slow growth and the government drifting towards eventual disaster.
Starmer now needs to channel his inner Pitt. Perhaps he doesn't have one, in which case his administration is doomed. But if he does, he will realise that instead of a bigger budget he needs to make a bigger argument: that the world he has seen in his first year in power is very different from the rather stable and usually unthreatening one in which we all lived until recently, and that this will make quite different demands on the country and the individuals who live in it.
He needs to show that reforming a runaway welfare budget and improving the nation's health, along with effective defences and developing new technologies, are all part of the same need to get ready for a very turbulent period to come.
Political leaders do not like warning voters they are in for a shock, particularly when up against populist challengers who tell people they can have everything they want. Yet it is clear that geopolitical disorder is making the world more dangerous, that the arrival of AI is already affecting the job market, that the risk of further pandemics is high, the climate is changing rapidly and other nations are making a grab for the key industries and critical resources of the future.
The world is full of opportunities too, to invent new technologies and defeat old diseases, but to take advantage of those we have to be ready for the turbulence, able to cope with rapid change and setbacks, fit for some big new challenges.
The prime minister could stand up after a year in office and explain the world he has now seen. Our defences are not ready for drones flying out of parked lorries in surprise attacks when we can't even stop protesters entering an air base and spraying paint into engines. Our system of government is too slow when we are still halfway through an inquiry into the last pandemic.
Our investment in research and science is still too low to keep up with the US and China. Soon we will need to retrain and assist millions of people whose jobs are transformed or destroyed by the likes of ChatGPT.
He could then explain, in that global context, that there is no way at all of coping with these things if we don't force radical change of our welfare system. A country that spends more on sickness benefits than on defence or schools will be sunk in this world of turbulence.
One that adds a city the size of Leicester every year to the numbers claiming disability benefits will go broke. A nation that accepts, as we do, that 26 per cent of 16 to 24-year-olds have a mental disorder and that many of them should not work as a result will definitively be unable to defend itself or adapt to rapid changes in the nature of work.
Finally, he should say that he has learnt that trying to tackle this with unplanned cuts announced by Rachel Reeves seemingly at random, like the winter fuel controversy, is not the way to do it. The reforms need to support those with poor mental health to build resilience through work and target support towards those with significant disabilities.
They are part of a bigger picture: not a spending cut for that moment, or a moral imperative suddenly discovered, but a need that fits with defence and the economy to prepare for a turbulent future. Like Pitt, he could then fit more into his day, because he would not have to work out, on each issue, where he ought to stand.