Cal Cowen

I am a Labour party member and am not going to vote for Andy Burnham Wes StreetIng or anyone else. I am going to vote for PM Starmer because he won a landslide victory under two years ago & needs at least another two years to demonstrate economic and political success.

Now that it's a question of when rather than if Keir Starmer steps down, it seems his legacy will divide opinion for years. One part of it that will become clearer with time is that he inherited one of the most politically and economically damaged versions of modern Britain any prime minister has faced. 1. Starmer took office after years of Brexit paralysis, leadership chaos, economic instability, collapsing trust in politics and public services pushed close to breaking point. 2. The political challenge was not simply winning power. It was restoring a basic sense that government itself could still function competently after years where politics often felt erratic and performative. 3. And whatever people think of Labour now, Britain does feel politically calmer than it did during the final years of Conservative rule. The problem for Starmer is that stabilisation rarely feels emotionally satisfying to voters living through stagnation. 4. If your mortgage is high, your rent is unaffordable and public services still feel stretched, “things are less chaotic” is not enough. That is where much of the frustration around him comes from. Many people expected not just stability, but visible national renewal such as cheaper living costs, faster growth, functioning infrastructure and a stronger sense the country was moving forward again. 5. Some of that impatience is fair. this government has on occasion looked too cautious, too managerial and too reluctant to tell a bigger story about where Britain is heading. But there has also been something unusual about the scale of hostility directed at Starmer personally. At times it has felt less connected to what he has actually done and more to what he represents culturally. 6. He is not a culture war politician. He does not perform outrage naturally. He rarely behaves like politics is entertainment. In a media environment built around emotional intensity, that can ironically make him look weaker than more chaotic figures. 7. The real irony is that many of the same people who said they wanted seriousness and stability after the Johnson and Truss years often seemed strangely underwhelmed once they got it. That may ultimately become Starmer’s political problem and his historical legacy at the same time. He arrived at a moment when Britain desperately needed stabilisation, but in an era where politics increasingly rewards spectacle over restraint. 8. History tends to judge leaders differently once the noise dies down. And there is a reasonable chance Starmer will eventually be viewed less as a failed transformational figure and more as someone who helped stop a period of national political deterioration from becoming something worse. That may not inspire chants or mythology. But after the volatility Britain went through, it may turn out to have mattered more than people currently realise.

I am a Labour party member and am not going to vote for Andy Burnham Wes StreetIng or anyone else. I am going to vote for PM Starmer because he won a landslide victory under two years ago & needs at least another two years to demonstrate economic and political success.

Am I the only one rooting for Starmer 😀