A MAJOR DISAPPOINTMENT

Keir Starmer's first 100 days in office.

Listen

0:00

Today officially marks the first 100 days of Keir Starmer and the Labour Party in government in the United Kingdom. The least we can say is that it has been a considerable mess, both in terms of substance and style. We are bitterly disappointed for all of us out there looking forward to a new type of governance and a breath of fresh integrity, competence and professionalism after the long, tired agony of the Tory Party under five successive Prime Ministers.

Hindsight is twenty-twenty, but in the wee hours of July 5, it quickly became apparent that the Tories had lost the election instead of the Labour Party winning it. If only Keir Starmer had understood that from day one. Gaining the public's trust should never be taken for granted, particularly after his declarations throughout the election campaign and before that, where he depicted a perfect picture of integrity, competence and clear headiness. The Labour Party was ready for government and could be trusted with the country's fortunes.

Lo and behold, the perfect oiled machine that never was quickly broke down. Governing is clearly more difficult than being in opposition, as decisions must ultimately be made, and accountability cannot be ignored. It is safe to say that Starmer and his team were prepared to take swift action immediately and had a clear plan on how to proceed. But your plan is only as good as its execution.

Like any incoming government, Starmer and his team were quick and keen to blame the challenging economic climate on the past government and warned that many difficult decisions lay ahead. The new Chancellor immediately audited the fiscal inheritance swiftly carried out by the Treasury, showing a deficit of 22 billion £ for 2024/2025. Whether genuinely surprised or not, Reeves declared that such a large black hole resulted from the Tories' mismanagement of the economy and that she would be forced to make unpopular decisions to ready the ship. The first one being to substantially cut the winter fuel payment support of up to 300 £ for pensioners.

It may well have been necessary to take such unpopular decisions, and that is part and parcel of being in government. However, focusing only on the situation's economics without considering and accounting for the political impact of such a decision was a grave mistake. The government gravely mismanaged the announcement of the measure.

Being in government also means dealing, by definition, with unexpected events, such as the significant riots sparked by the horrific killing of three children at a Taylor Swift dance class in Stockton at the end of July. Based on far-right misinformation on social media, riots broke out all over England where far-right racist demonstrators took to the streets to vent their anger and, more importantly, their hatred and racism towards immigrants and all other non-white communities. Thanks to his prior experience as head of the Crown's Prosecution Services, Starmer quickly responded with a firm hand, declaring that the rioters would be pursued and held accountable with the full force of the law. However, the underlying situation in the prisons was dramatic, with a significant lack of available places that forced the government to release less serious offenders to make up for lost space.

Although the unrest was eventually quelled, the government lost the opportunity to present its plans for the future as the Parliament had gone into recess, and their only communication was on the difficult times ahead and the tough but necessary measures that would be needed to remedy the situation. Doom and gloom were at the centre of the government's messaging.

The second major issue was a spectacular own goal and went to the heart of the notion of a new, sleaze-free government focused on upholding the government to the highest of standards. It soon became public at the end of August that Keir Starmer and several other senior ministers had received gifts, primarily from one of the Labour Party's major donors, Lord Alli, in the form of free tickets to concerts, clothes and football tickets over 100'000 £ for Starmer himself and his family. Whilst such gifts were duly reported and not technically illegal, the perception of a holier-than-thou Prime Minister taking advantage of gifts was very damaging. Moreover, Starmer clumsily tried to justify the access to the executive area at the Emirates Stadium so that he could watch his beloved Arsenal play, but it was for security reasons. One such donation was to the tune of 2'485 £ for purchasing "multiple pairs of glasses - apparently up to 15 pairs".

Starmer tried to maintain that such gifts were not out of the norm for a Prime Minister. Still, he should be well advised that former French Prime Minister François Fillon was entrapped in a similar suit for pay scandal, effectively terminating his political career back in 2017.

This episode has damaged Starmer's reputation and, in my opinion, rightly so. The position of Prime Minister is challenging and requires sacrifices for the incumbent and the Prime Minister's family. However, the way each individual approaches this role and the responsibilities that go with it says a lot about the incumbent's character and, to a larger extent, the prevalent political culture.

As a self-professed man of the people from a working-class background whose father was famously a "tool worker", Starmer should have remembered the well-known adage "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion" and more so Caesar himself. He cannot emphasise his working-class background and, at the same time, accept a gift of not one, not two, but fifteen pairs of glasses (one for every second day of the month), especially if his government is imposing unpopular decisions on vulnerable people such as pensioners.

The sense of entitlement and privilege does not sit well with most Labour voters and, indeed, of the public at large, a sentiment I wholeheartedly understand and support. Starmer belatedly tried to limit the damage by paying back some of the gifts, but such a reaction only reinforces the notion that such gifts were exaggerated. If any repayment were to be made, it should have been for all gifts or none. Sometimes I wish British politicians would be as discrete and boring as members of the Swiss Federal Council, who can walk home from work or take the train without being bothered or even recognised. Such a sense of entitlement is not part of the Swiss political culture, although it is far from me saying that all Swiss politicians are squeaky clean.

Starmer has demonstrated his willingness to seize the initiative and to reset his management style and priorities. He has replaced his unpopular chief of staff and hopes that the next 100 days will be more clement for him and his government, thus demonstrating that the present difficulties have merely been teething problems. He can ill afford to let this first impression of disappointment become firmly entrenched in the British political psyche.