Starmer's first 100 days sees the UK in Bizarro World. Is this really the change people voted for?

Evaluating a politician’s first 100 days in office is one of the many imports from US politics so beloved by the British press. The idea comes from president Franklin Roosevelt, who upon taking office in 1933 held a special three-month session of Congress to pass his New Deal reforms and drag the US out of the Great Depression. What do Keir Starmer’s first 100 days tell us about his own reforming credentials?

Labour got off to an energetic start, scrapping the Conservatives’ plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, clearing the path for new wind and solar farms, and making a pay deal with NHS doctors. In those first weeks, there was a general sense of activity and competence.

But quickly the Labour machine began to stall. Starmer’s law-and-order response to the racist riots (which he correctly labelled “far-right”) was a relief amid Tory babble about “legitimate concerns”. But a few weeks later he met with Giorgia Meloni, Italy’s right-wing PM, saying he wanted to learn from the “remarkable progress” of her crackdown on migration. 

• Keir Starmer on being as ‘bold as Attlee’ and why there’ll be no return to austerity under his watch
• All of Keir Starmer’s U-turns and abandoned policy pledges, from child benefits to private schools

On the war in Gaza, Labour restarted funding for UNRWA, dropped its legal challenge to the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrants for Israeli leaders, and suspended some arms sales to Israel, (though not for parts used in F-35 planes). These are good steps, but over a low bar.  

At Labour conference, Starmer declared, “I call again for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza [and] the return of the sausages”, before correcting himself with “the hostages”. The mistake beautifully satirised his own platitudes, which might as well be a breakfast order for all the good they do the Palestinians (or the Israeli hostages). 

Turning to the economy, behold our “£22bn black hole” – symbol of Conservative mess left for Labour to clean up, licence for keeping the two-child benefit cap and means-testing winter fuel payments, and backdrop for solemn warnings about a “painful” budget to come. (Painful for whom?)

One hundred days on from the general election, we find ourselves in a Bizarro World where a Labour government is talking about “difficult decisions” needed to balance the books, and the Tory opposition is attacking the human cost of welfare cuts, (at least for Tory-voting pensioners). This is certainly “change”, but is it the change people voted for?

As if to provide comic relief, the Tory press has suddenly discovered that MPs are taking gifts from donors and other generous souls. How long has this been going on? Quite a while, actually. As the Guardian reports, MPs have declared £6m in “freebies” since 2010 – half of it in the last two years. 

The right’s hypocrisy on this is incredible, but it’s not the whole story. Starmer’s clothes and football tickets might be crumbs against Boris Johnson’s epic corruption. But there’s no reason why Mr Integrity can’t buy his own glasses. 

Reviewing the situation, one is struck by how many of Labour’s woes are to do with its fealty to conventional wisdom and business-as-usual. Whether it’s fiscal prudence, immigration, foreign policy, or the influence of donors and lobbyists, the party of “change” is in effect being attacked for the failures of the status quo. 

Since Labour is going to be attacked anyway, why doesn’t it skip the usual infighting (it’s all Sue Gray’s fault! etc.) and break these self-imposed chains?

In 1933, Roosevelt ditched Herbert Hoover’s conservative response to the financial crash. The New Deal regulated banking, expanded workers’ rights, created public infrastructure jobs, and gave state support to the poor.  

As David Cameron and George Osborne knew, you can use a crisis to justify almost any policy. Instead of “tough decisions” and a budget of pain, why doesn’t Labour propose a Roosevelt-style rescue package to “save Britain”, funded by borrowing to invest and progressive taxation? The mantra “we have no choice” need not only sanction conservative policies. 

The migration and asylum system might be broken, but is being even more draconian the only possible response? If “Britain is back on the world stage”, why can’t it drop a policy on Israel-Palestine which has so obviously failed? And if people are upset about donors buying ministers’ clothes, why not ban all gifts to MPs, regulate (or replace) party donations, and have a proper clean up of money in British politics?   

Keir Starmer talked in his conference speech about Labour being “a great reforming government”. But you can’t change the country without changing its mind, or challenging its most treasured myths. 

Adam Barnett is a journalist and political commentator.

Do you have a story to tell or opinions to share about this? Get in touch and tell us more. Big Issue exists to give homeless and marginalised people the opportunity to earn an income. To support our work buy a copy of the magazine or get the app from the App Store or Google Play.