Once again in the UK, all political debate has been reduced to a leadership discussion. Senior ministers have joined over 80 MPs in the revolt against Keir Starmer as the Cabinet meets this morning. Already today, a first Government minister, Miatta Fahnbulleh, has resigned. For the Prime Minister, this is set to be a moment of truth.

The question that almost nobody asks in the current frenzied discussion about Starmer’s future is what concrete political agenda his opponents have, and how what will finally emerge as an agenda will fare when it comes into contact with reality. The latter is of concern to the bond markets and voters, both of whom want a growth agenda that works.

What sank Starmer was the lack of such an agenda. He needed, but failed, to make a political case for rerouting Government spending from welfare to public-sector investments. The post-Brexit economic environment required a shift away from European Union regulation, and trying to straddle the two worlds has failed. You need to jump in or out.

Starmer devoted insufficient attention to the problem of chronically low productivity growth, the curse of the British economy and of all prime ministers since 2008. Having fallen off a cliff during the global financial crisis, it never recovered. The main reason was the country’s overreliance on the City of London for economic growth, and its lack of diversification. This is exactly where the Tories failed. Now Labour is making the same error.

Even in his speech yesterday, which was framed as a make-or-break moment, Starmer could not muster anything beyond shallow rhetoric. How often have we heard that he wants the UK to be at the heart of Europe? It is a meaningless phrase unless the PM says: I want to go all in — EU membership, Schengen, the euro, the whole lot. That’s where the heart of Europe lies. Youth mobility is a fine initiative. So is the plan to give young people an offer of a job or a training programme. But is that all? Starmer’s political crime is that he let a whopping political majority go to waste because he never really knew what he wanted to do with the power that came with the job.

But while it’s easy to criticise the Prime Minister’s record, it’s questionable as to what is conceivably gained by replacing him with Andy Burnham, Wes Streeting, or whoever emerges in the end if he does indeed step down. Burnham is the Mayor of Greater Manchester and a former Cabinet member under Gordon Brown. He is a likeable figure, popular in his party, and seen as someone who can build coalitions. But what are his ideas to revive economic growth? When the Conservatives dethroned Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May, they wanted a different policy and installed a politician who delivered it. When they replaced Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, they did not know what they wanted. The brewing coup against Starmer falls squarely into the latter category.

Either the bond market will sink his successor, as it did with Truss. Or that successor will end up in the same position as Starmer. The smarter choice for MPs would have been to start the rebellion with a new political agenda, and then find someone to deliver it.

This is an edited version of an article that first appeared in the Eurointelligence newsletter.

---

Wolfgang Munchau is the Director of Eurointelligence and an UnHerd columnist.

EuroBriefing

---