Britain should be wary of confusing a change of Labour leader with a change of direction, writes the businesswoman, philanthropist and investor
Two years ago, Britain voted for change. Instead, it got another political soap opera.
On July 4, 2024, Labour won what looked like an overwhelming mandate. The party took 412 seats, secured a majority of 174, and the Conservatives were reduced to just 121 MPs, their lowest ever seat tally. The public seemed to have delivered an unmistakable verdict.
But was it really a vote of confidence in Labour, or simply a national eviction notice for the Conservatives?
That question matters because Sir Keir Starmer’s landslide has turned to ashes in his mouth. A premiership sold as steady and competent is ending after barely two years. The man who promised to restore trust has become another entry in Britain’s revolving door of discredited Prime Ministers.
Starmer did not fail because of the problems he inherited, he failed because he mistook a large parliamentary majority for deep public consent. Labour’s victory was broad in seats, but shallow in enthusiasm. Voters wanted change. They did not necessarily want Starmerism.
That distinction was fatal. From the beginning, the Government struggled to explain what it stood for or formulate a coherent economic and industrial strategy. There were missions, targets, reviews and speeches, but little urgency. The country was told things were even worse than expected. The feel-good factor vanished. Growth gave way to despicable tax rises, spending rows and a sense that Labour had arrived without the courage, skill or discipline to use power well.
Some mistakes were political. The winter fuel row told pensioners Labour’s first instinct was to take things away. The employer national insurance raid sent the wrong signal to business. VAT on private schools became another ideological gesture dressed up as fiscal prudence. The failure to effectively deal with the illegal immigration crisis, public order and cultural tensions left Starmer looking cautious when he needed to be clear, and evasive when he needed to be honest. Rowing back on foundational principles of Brexit and talking about reintegration with the EU also ignored the mood music.
Other mistakes were personal. Freebiegate damaged the image of moral seriousness he had built. The Peter Mandelson affair was worse. No serious person suggests Starmer was complicit in Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes, nor that he had any connection to them. The issue was judgement. Appointing Mandelson to Washington despite the questions around his Epstein association was exactly the kind of insider decision that makes voters believe Westminster looks after itself first and the country second.
Then came the midterm local and devolved elections on May 7. Labour’s beating was not just a bad night. It was the moment the party realised its majority in Parliament no longer reflected the mood of the country.
Resignations followed, discipline broke down, and the spotlight on Andy Burnham became too hard to ignore.
Burnham now presents himself as the answer: more rooted, more northern, more emotionally fluent, more willing to talk about place, class and public services. But Britain should be wary of confusing a change of Labour leader with a change of direction. Burnham offers the same state-heavy instincts in warmer language.
The next two years will be no less disastrous than the last two.
This is the question Labour cannot avoid. Is this still the landslide people voted for in 2024? Is replacing Starmer with Burnham democratic renewal, or just another internal coronation by a party trying to save itself before facing the voters again?
Britain has had enough resets, relaunches and new Prime Ministers without new answers. The public voted for change. What they got was drift, infighting and another leader leaving Downing Street before the job was done.
Now, whilst Labour looks to Andy Burnham for its next act, Britain should be looking harder at opposition leader, Kemi Badenoch - a powerhouse Conservative who increasingly looks like the future Britain needs to get back on track.
Does Labour still have the mandate it claimed two years ago? I think not.
