Sir Keir Starmer will mark his first 100 days in office this Sunday. When his press spokesperson was asked ahead of the big day if the prime minister thought it had been a successful start, he simply said: “It’s up to the public to decide that.”
The verdict is in, and it isn’t good: Sir Keir’s approval poll ratings last week fell to -33 – a drop of 44 points since his post-election high, while one poll put Labour just one point ahead of the Tories.
A poll out this weekend by YouGov finds nearly half of those who voted Labour in the last general election feel let down so far, while six in 10 disapprove of the government’s record so far, against one in six who approve of the Starmer government.
Sir Keir will no doubt say it’s not about the first 100 days, it’s about the “next decade of national renewal”. And perhaps he has a point. How can you foretell the fortunes of a political leader from 100 days?
The great late Alistair Cooke in one of his Letter from America dispatches said making a big deal out of the first 100 days was a “foolish custom”.
Image: Sir Keir Starmer. Pic: PA
And in some ways he is right. For a start, how can anyone measure up to the leader this mythic yardstick was used for, Franklin D Roosevelt? He pushed through a record number of laws in his first 100 days in office as he sought to pull America out of the clutches of the Great Depression and confront a national crisis.
More on Labour
Related Topics:
Nothing like it has been seen before or since. You can understand why the vainglorious Donald Trump dismissed the 100 days notion as a “ridiculous standard” (while simultaneously caring ever so much and setting up a website dedicated to his first 100 days).
Putting FDR aside, there are reasons why the first 100 days are a useful yardstick. It sets the tone of a premiership and tells us something about a leader’s momentum.
Advertisement
In these early weeks, fresh from an election victory, a prime minister is at the height of their popularity and political capital.
The first 100 days then can be seen as a staging post in which we can take stock and ask whether a leader has met the moment or fallen short.
Image: Sir Keir and his wife Lady Victoria. Pic: PA
100 days Sir Keir might want to forget
For Sir Keir it’s been 100 days he might in many ways want to forget. By pretty much any measure, it’s been a disappointing start. From opinion polls to party management to the operation of No 10, Sir Keir has been in difficulty.
That a prime minister felt compelled to overhaul his top team and replace his chief of staff Sue Gray on the eve of his 100-day anniversary says it all.
Instead of using the first 100 days marker to shout about all the things this Labour government has done, the prime minister has triggered a reset of his government.
The fresh start promised in the election campaign has given way to a false start after his No 10 operation became paralysed by infighting, his personal ratings plummeted after rows over freebies and his government got so lost in itself it forgot to tell the story of change and show that story to the public.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:11
Starmer: It’s ‘right’ to repay gifts
An ‘incredibly frustrating’ start
It has been, admits one senior government figure, an “incredibly frustrating” period in which the work of government has been drowned out by the mess around Downing Street power struggles and rows over concert tickets, spectacles and suits.
“A lot of Starmer’s early decisions have been designed to deliver on the manifesto promises and the economy. We have pushed through renters reform, making work pay, we are setting up GB Energy and pushing through planning reform,” says another senior figure.
“A lot of what we have done is to get things going on that path to deliver for the people. It’s the worst thing for everyone and every member of cabinet not to be talking about the change the country elected us for.
“We have taken a bit of a hit [over freebies] but I think it’s fixable because it’s optics rather than wasting taxpayer’s money. It’s more about a country that wants to see the PM lead on issues they care about – the cost of living, the NHS, the economy – and when they don’t see that, it’s frustrating.”
Image: Sir Keir with Prince George and the Prince of Wales in the stands after the final whistle at the Euro 2024 final. Pic: PA
‘What poor conditions the country is in’
It has also been, admit No 10 and No 11 insiders, much more difficult than they anticipated.
Be it the race riots that ripped through our cities shortly after Labour was elected, to the crisis of prison places or the problems of immediate funding shortfalls the chancellor says she’s identified, the new administration has been beset by challenges.
Image: Sir Keir arrives with Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Energy Secretary Ed Miliband. Pic: PA
“It’s been very clear this first 100 days what poor conditions the country’s in,” says one senior government figure.
Overlay that with the crisis in the Middle East and the ongoing Ukraine war, and this is a prime minister and new team with a very full plate indeed.
But what has also been clear these first 100 days is what poor condition the prime minister’s operation is in.
Image: Sir Keir addresses the United Nations General Assembly. Pic: AP
The prime minister has taken a huge gamble
You may not know the characters behind the big black door of No 10, or what they do, but what will be obvious to you is that having to overhaul the operation within the first three months of government because it has become dysfunctional, toxic and not fit for purpose, doesn’t bode well.
Because it raises a very acute question: if a prime minister can’t run Downing Street, how the hell is he going to run the country?
That Sir Keir moved to clean up his No 10 operation last week was a defining moment for his first term in office.
By moving out Sue Gray as his chief of staff – the most powerful unelected figure in government – and replacing her with his trusted ally and key political aide Morgan McSweeney, the prime minister has taken a huge gamble.
That’s because he’s swapped out an experienced Whitehall operator with over 30 years of experience in government with a political strategist who is the brains behind the election victory.But the big unknown is whether Mr McSweeney can run the government like he ran the election.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:12
Why did Sue Gray resign?
Has McSweeney got the experience to run the government?
The whole point of bringing Ms Gray into the No 10 operation is because she understood the machinery of government and how to pull the levers of Whitehall to get things done.
Mr McSweeney might be a brilliant political operator but has he got the experience to actually run government? Sir Keir presumably in the past concluded he had not, which is why he hired Ms Gray.
Friends of Ms Gray tell me she thought Sir Keir needed to pad out the team who ran his office as leader of the opposition with more big beasts now he was running the government.
They say she pushed to bring in new people who she thought had the necessary experience – the reason Sir Keir didn’t have a principal private secretary, a crucial mandarin for any prime minister, until Ms Gray was removed was because she and others were locked in a turf war over it.
You know the tensions that ensued as Ms Gray went to war with advisors – over their job titles, their access to the prime minister, their salaries, their readiness for government – because she became the subject of endless briefings.
The more Ms Gray was in the press, the more untenable she knew her position would become with a prime minister running out of patience.
Sir Keir did move and moved decisively. But that his operation got so toxic, and that some on his team kept up the briefing wars despite him absolutely hating it, doesn’t bode well for the prime minister: it speaks to dysfunction in his operation – and it is rarely one individual from which that dysfunction flows.
Starmer would probably like to start again
The prime minister can at least take comfort from the fact much of the criticism a leader faces in the first 100 days doesn’t have to define the success of a leader.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
President Bill Clinton got off to a shaky start in his first term and went on to become the second Democrat president since Roosevelt to win a second term.
But if, as one of Sir Keir’s allies tells me, “every day in government matters”, then you also have to conclude Sir Keir’s first 100 days have been a horrible waste as the prime minister scrambled to set the agenda and keep his own house in order.
He is a prime minister who would probably like to forget his first 100 days entirely and start again.
There will be an investment summit on Monday and the budget later this month. The goal of this government is to “be boring” and get back to the business of governing.
The next election is a long way off, Sir Keir has a big majority and a massive megaphone.
He can perhaps afford to write off these first three months if he gets the next few right. But after one false start, he can’t afford another.
Opinion by: Casey Ford, PhD, researcher at Nym Technologies
Web3 rolled in on the wave of decentralization. Decentralized applications (DApps) grew by 74% in 2024 and individual wallets by 485%, with total value locked (TVL) in decentralized finance (DeFi) closing at a near-record high of $214 billion. The industry is also, however, heading straight for a state of capture if it does not wake up.
As Elon Musk has teased of placing the US Treasury on blockchain, however poorly thought out, the tides are turning as crypto is deregulated. But when they do, is Web3 ready to “protect [user] data,” as Musk surrogates pledge? If not, we’re all on the brink of a global data security crisis.
The crisis boils down to a vulnerability at the heart of the digital world: the metadata surveillance of all existing networks, even the decentralized ones of Web3. AI technologies are now at the foundation of surveillance systems and serve as accelerants. Anonymity networks offer a way out of this state of capture. But this must begin with metadata protections across the board.
Metadata is the new frontier of surveillance
Metadata is the overlooked raw material of AI surveillance. Compared to payload data, metadata is lightweight and thus easy to process en masse. Here, AI systems excel best. Aggregated metadata can reveal much more than encrypted contents: patterns of behaviors, networks of contacts, personal desires and, ultimately, predictability. And legally, it is unprotected in the way end-to-end (E2E) encryptedcommunications are now in some regions.
While metadata is a part of all digital assets, the metadata that leaks from E2E encrypted traffic exposes us and what we do: IPs, timing signatures, packet sizes, encryption formats and even wallet specifications. All of this is fully legible to adversaries surveilling a network. Blockchain transactions are no exception.
From piles of digital junk can emerge a goldmine of detailed records of everything we do. Metadata is our digital unconscious, and it is up for grabs for whatever machines can harvest it for profit.
The limits of blockchain
Protecting the metadata of transactions was an afterthought of blockchain technology. Crypto does not offer anonymity despite the reactionary association of the industry with illicit trade. It offers pseudonymity, the ability to hold tokens in a wallet with a chosen name.
Harry Halpin and Ania Piotrowska have diagnosed the situation:
“[T]he public nature of Bitcoin’s ledger of transactions […] means anyone can observe the flow of coins. [P]seudonymous addresses do not provide any meaningful level of anonymity, since anyone can harvest the counterparty addresses of any given transaction and reconstruct the chain of transactions.”
As all chain transactions are public, anyone running a full node can have a panoptic view of chain activity. Further, metadata like IP addresses attached to pseudonymous wallets can be used to identify people’s locations and identities if tracking technologies are sophisticated enough.
This is the core problem of metadata surveillance in blockchain economics: Surveillance systems can effectively de-anonymize our financial traffic by any capable party.
Knowledge is also an insecurity
Knowledge is not just power, as the adage goes. It’s also the basis on which we are exploited and disempowered. There are at least three general metadata risks across Web3.
Fraud: Financial insecurity and surveillance are intrinsically linked. The most serious hacks, thefts or scams depend on accumulated knowledge about a target: their assets, transaction histories and who they are. DappRadar estimates a $1.3-billion loss due to “hacks and exploits” like phishing attacks in 2024 alone.
Leaks: The wallets that permit access to decentralized tokenomics rely on leaky centralized infrastructures. Studies of DApps and wallets have shown the prevalence of IP leaks: “The existing wallet infrastructure is not in favor of users’ privacy. Websites abuse wallets to fingerprint users online, and DApps and wallets leak the user’s wallet address to third parties.” Pseudonymity is pointless if people’s identities and patterns of transactions can be easily revealed through metadata.
Chain consensus: Chain consensus is a potential point of attack. One example is a recent initiative by Celestia to add an anonymity layer to obscure the metadata of validators against particular attacks seeking to disrupt chain consensus in Celestia’s Data Availability Sampling (DAS) process.
Securing Web3 through anonymity
As Web3 continues to grow, so does the amount of metadata about people’s activities being offered up to newly empowered surveillance systems.
Beyond VPNs
Virtual private network (VPN) technology is decades old at this point. The lack of advancement is shocking, with most VPNs remaining in the same centralized and proprietary infrastructures. Networks like Tor and Dandelion stepped in as decentralized solutions. Yet they are still vulnerable to surveillance by global adversaries capable of “timing analysis” via the control of entry and exit nodes. Even more advanced tools are needed.
Noise networks
All surveillance looks for patterns in a network full of noise. By further obscuring patterns of communication and de-linking metadata like IPs from metadata generated by traffic, the possible attack vectors can be significantly reduced, and metadata patterns can be scrambled into nonsense.
Anonymizing networks have emerged to anonymize sensitive traffic like communications or crypto transactions via noise: cover traffic, timing obfuscations and data mixing. In the same spirit, other VPNs like Mullvad have introduced programs like DAITA (Defense Against AI-guided Traffic Analysis), which seeks to add “distortion” to its VPN network.
Scrambling the codes
Whether it’s defending people against the assassinations in tomorrow’s drone wars or securing their onchain transactions, new anonymity networks are needed to scramble the codes of what makes all of us targetable: the metadata our online lives leave in their wake.
The state of capture is already here. Machine learning is feeding off our data. Instead of leaving people’s data there unprotected, Web3 and anonymity systems can make sure that what ends up in the teeth of AI is effectively garbage.
Opinion by: Casey Ford, PhD, researcher at Nym Technologies.
This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.
Wes Streeting said the NHS is “addicted to overspending”, as he confirmed he is seeking cuts within Integrated Care Boards (ICBs).
The health secretary told Sky’s Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillipsthat ICBs – which areresponsible for planning local health services – have been tasked with finding 50% savings to boost efficiency.
It’s part of the government’s plans to slash bureaucracy in the health service – which Mr Streeting acknowledged on Sunday would cause anxiety among administrators facing job losses.
Image: Sir Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting visit a healthcare provider in Surrey. Pic: Reuters
He said he was “genuinely sorry” for people worried about the future, but efficiency savings would divert money to the frontline of the NHS.
Confirming that Jim Mackey, head of the soon-to-be abolished NHS England, had written to ICBs asking them to halve their running costs, Mr Streeting said: “Financial plans to us would have involved an overspend between £5bn and £6bn before the new financial year is even begun.
“And I’m afraid this speaks to the culture that I identified before the general election, where the NHS is addicted to overspending, is addicted to running operating deficits with the assumption that someone will come along to bail them out, which local councils would never be able to do.”
More on Nhs
Related Topics:
Reports of the cuts have sparked concerns among health leaders.
Matthew Taylor, head of the NHS Confederation, said it will require “major changes” and make the task of delivering “long term transformation of the NHS much harder”.
Image: An NHS hospital ward. File pic: PA
Mr Streeting denied the cut was effectively a form of austerity, saying the government is going after a culture of “waste and inefficiency” which “isn’t just frustrating patients and taxpayers” but staff working for the NHS too.
“They can see layer upon layer upon layer of bureaucracy and accountability,” he said.
“That’s not the fault of the people working in the system. They are also victims of it.
“And that’s why we’re going hard at achieving those savings in order to redeploy money into frontline services, which benefit patients.”
The government also announced this week it would be scrapping NHS England, the world’s biggest quango, saying there is too much duplication with the work that the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) does.
Scrapping NHS England ‘beginning not the end’
Mr Streeting has since indicated he will look to scrap other health-related bodies, writing in The Sunday Telegraph that axing NHS England is “the beginning, not the end”.
Asked what other organisations could be for the chopping board, Mr Streeting said he did not want to “get ahead” of a review by Dr Penny Dash into the operational effectiveness of NHS regulators.
“What I will do is look at how we can reduce the number of regulators, reduce the number of regulations wherever possible… and try to reduce the amount of money we are spending,” he said.
The cabinet minister defended the language being used to describe the plans, after he described the NHS as being “bloated” by bureaucracy and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer called it “flabby”.
Streeting ‘genuinely sorry’ about job losses
Mr Streeting stressed he was “talking about the system, not the people who work in it” – adding that he was “genuinely sorry” about the job losses that will come down the line.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:25
Conservatives: Scrapping NHS England is ‘right thing’
The government has not yet said how many jobs it expects to axe under the reforms.
Mr Streeting acknowledged lots of people will be anxious about their futures, adding: “I’m genuinely sorry about that, because I don’t want them to be in that position. But I’ve got to make the changes.”
The government’s plans have generally received support from opposition parties, though there have been calls for more details.
Shadow education secretary Laura Trott said reorganisation reforms introduced by the Tories in 2013 were “well-intentioned but didn’t work” and she agrees “in principle” with what Labour has put forward.
However she said the changes aren’t a “silver bullet” and could result in further costs and disruption so “we’ll need to see a very clear plan from the government for how that won’t affect waiting lists further”.
Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats said the government must “take the same sense of urgency shown here to social care, and complete their review by the end of the year rather than continuing to kick the can down the road”.
Since taking office nine months ago Sir Keir Starmer has weathered party rows about winter fuel payments, the two child benefit cap, WASPI women, airport expansion and cuts to international aid.
All of these decisions have been justified in the name of balancing the books – filling that notorious £22bn black hole, sticking to the fiscal rules, and in the pursuit of growth as the government’s number one priority.
But welfare reform feels like a far more existential row.
Ministers have been making the point for weeks that the health benefits bill for working-age people has ballooned by £20bn since the pandemic and is set to grow by another £18bn over the next five years, to £70bn.
But the detail of where those cuts could fall is proving highly divisive.
Not the final version perhaps – but given all backbench Labour MPs who were summoned to meetings with the Number 10 policy teams for briefings this week, that response is perhaps more than a little disingenuous.
In his interview with Sir Trevor Phillips, he went on to make the broader case for PIP reform – highlighting the thousand people who sign up to the benefit every day and arguing that the system needs to be “sustainable”, to “deliver for those that need it most” and “provide the right kind of support for the different types of need that exist”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:54
Streeting defends PM’s comments on ‘flabby’ public sector
To me this signals the government are preparing to unveil a tighter set of PIP eligibility criteria, with a refocus on supporting those with the greatest needs.
Changes to incapacity benefit to better incentivise working – for those who can – are also clearly on the cards.
The health secretary has been hitting out at the “overdiagnosis” of mental health conditions, arguing that “going out to work is better for your mental and physical health, than being spent and being stuck at home”, and promising benefit reforms that will help support people back to work rather than “trapped in the benefits system”.
Turning Tory?
Starmer said this week the current welfare system couldn’t be defended on economic or moral grounds.
The Conservatives don’t disagree.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:25
Conservatives: Scrapping NHS England is ‘right thing’
Before the election, they proposed £12bn in cuts to the welfare bill, with a focus on getting people on long-term sickness back to work.
This morning, shadow education secretary Laura Trott claimed Labour denied that welfare cuts were needed during the election campaign and had wasted time in failing to include benefits reform in the King’s Speech.
“They’re coming to this chaotically, too late and without a plan,” she said.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
Notwithstanding the obvious critique that the Tories had 14 years to get a grip on the situation – what’s most striking here is that, yet again, the Labour government seems to be borrowing Conservative clothes.
When challenged by Sir Trevor this morning, Streeting denied they were turning Tory – claiming the case for welfare reform and supporting people into work is a Labour argument.
But, from increasing defence spending and cutting the aid budget to scrapping NHS England, there’s a definite pattern emerging.
If you didn’t know a Labour administration was in charge, you might have assumed these were the policies of a Conservative government.
It’s a strategy which makes many of his own backbenchers deeply uncomfortable.
But it’s doing a good job of neutering the Tory opposition.