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.
A minister has defended Sir Keir Starmer’s decision to discipline rebellious MPs, saying they would have used “stronger” language against those who are “continually causing trouble”.
Home Office minister Jess Phillips told Sky News’ Matt Barbet that Labour MPs were elected “as a team under a banner and under a manifesto” and could “expect” to face disciplinary action if they did not vote with the government.
Image: Brian Leishman, Chris Hinchliff, Neil Duncan-Jordan and Rachael Maskell.
Pic: Uk Parliament
Brian Leishman, Chris Hinchliff, Neil Duncan-Jordan and Rachael Maskell all lost the whip, meaning they are no longer part of Labour’s parliamentary party and will sit as independent MPs.
Labour backbenchers lined up to criticise the move last night, arguing it was a “terrible look” that made “a Reform government much more likely”.
But speaking to Sky News, Ms Phillips said: “We were elected as a team under a banner and under a manifesto, and we have to seek to work together, and if you are acting in a manner that is to undermine the ability of the government to deliver those things, I don’t know what you expect.
“Now I speak out against things I do not like, both internally and sometimes externally, all the time.
“There is a manner of doing that, that is the right way to go about it. And sometimes you feel forced to rebel and vote against.”
Referring to a description of the rebels by an unnamed source in The Times, she said: “I didn’t call it persistent knob-headery, but that’s the way that it’s been termed by some.”
She said she would have described it as “something much more sweary” because “we are a team, and we have to act as a team in order to achieve something”.
More than 100 MPs had initially rebelled against the plan to cut personal independent payments (PIP). Ultimately, 47 voted against the bill’s third reading, after it was watered down significantly in the face of defeat.
Three other MPs – who also voted against the government – have had their trade envoy roles removed. They are Rosena Allin Khan, Bell Ribeiro-Addy and Mohammed Yasin.
However, it is understood this was not the only reason behind the decision to reprimand all seven MPs, with sources citing “repeated breaches of party discipline”.
Mr Hinchliff, the MP for North East Hertfordshire, proposed a series of amendments to the flagship planning and infrastructure bill criticising the government’s approach.
Mr Duncan-Jordan, the MP for Poole, led a rebellion against the cut to the winter fuel payments while Alloa and Grangemouth MP Mr Leishman has been critical of the government’s position on Gaza as well as the closing of an oil refinery in his constituency.
Ian Byrne, the Labour MP for Liverpool West Derby, wrote on X on Wednesday that the prime minister’s actions “don’t show strength” and were “damaging Labour’s support and risk rolling out the red carpet for Reform”.
Leeds East MP Richard Burgon added that “challenging policies that harm our communities” would “make a Reform government much more likely”.
Ian Lavery, Labour MP for Blyth and Ashington, warned the suspensions were “a terrible look”.
“Dissatisfaction with the direction the leadership is taking us isn’t confined to the fringes,” he wrote.
I’m going to level with you – I am very, very confused.
In fact, I’ve got five reasons why I’m very confused.
The first reason I’m confused is because this is meant to be a show of strength, but most people have literally never heard of these four individuals.
Rachael Maskell is a bit well-known, but if this is intended to impress the public, then I’m not sure the public will notice.
Secondly, if it’s about installing discipline in the parliamentary Labour Party, I’m confused about that. Surely Sir Keir Starmer‘s aim right now should be to unite the parliamentary Labour Party rather than divide it.
After the welfare rebellion, the promise was to listen. Starmer gave interviews saying he was going to create policy more sympathetic to his party.
It was only yesterday morning that Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall said the government’s welfare reforms were in the “right place” – yet the people who helped get them there are suspended.
Suspended for agreeing with what is now government policy is an odd look.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
5:27
Sir Keir Starmer has suspended four MPs from the parliamentary Labour Party for ‘repeated breaches of discipline’.
Fourth, I’m confused at who the most prominent individual to be suspended is – Rachael Maskell.
She was on Sky News within minutes of the suspension looking genuinely surprised and really rather upset.
Now, there’s absolutely no doubt she was a ringleader in this rebellion. Eight days ago, she authored an article in the New Statesman discussing how to organise a government rebellion – so I think that’s pretty much case closed.
But Rachael is of the soft left, not the hard left. And who else is on the soft left? It’s Starmer.
It does feel as if the prime minister is slightly coming for people who have dangerously similar views to him.
I understand this is all about drawing hard lines and showing who’s on your team and who isn’t.
But some of that line looks like it goes awfully close to people that you really wouldn’t want to be on the wrong side of if you’re prime minister.
And finally, three other MPs – Rosena Allin-Khan, Bell Ribeiro-Addy and Mohammed Yasin – have been sacked from their trade envoy jobs. They do retain the party whip.
But here’s the thing that hurts your head: if you are a Lib Dem trade envoy, like Sarah Olney, or if you’re a Tory trade envoy, as George Freeman was until a couple of weeks ago when he was suspended, you do not have to obey the whip – and you can continue to keep your trade envoy role.
But if you’re in the Labour Party and you’re a trade envoy, you do have to obey the whip.
And it’s just one of those mad inconsistencies where if you’re in another party, you can keep your trade envoy role, if you’re in the governing party, you can’t. That just doesn’t make sense at all.
So there are my five reasons why I’m completely confused.