Richard Vaughan: The i Paper’s chief political correspondent
So there we have it: after more than a week of anticipation Sir Keir Starmer has delivered his fresh set of “milestones” that will be delivered by the end of this Parliament.
Confusingly, the six milestones fall under the five overarching missions that the Government will use as its lodestar to put the country back on track.
At the heart of the plans are concrete targets that Labour has said it will deliver by the next election, such as ensuring 92 per cent of patients receive surgery within 18 weeks, delivering 1.5 million homes and 150 new major infrastructure projects, putting 13,000 bobbies on the beat and ensuring 75 per cent of five-year-olds are “school ready”.
But there are also question marks alongside others, not least the promise to improve living standards by measuring household disposable income and GDP per capita. Without saying by how much, the target then becomes meaningless given that even household spending increased across the last parliament, which was the worst on record for declining living standards.
There remains serious confusion over the Government’s pledge to deliver a net-zero energy grid, which appeared to be watered down to “at least” 95 per cent clean energy. Both Starmer and officials appeared adamant that there has been no rowing back, but how Downing Street has allowed this to potentially overshadow its big moment should cause concern.
But above all, Starmer’s refocusing of his policy agenda represents a huge gamble. The Prime Minister was honest when he admitted that his targets were incredibly ambitious. Whittling down a seven million-long NHS waiting list has never been done; and not since the 70s has housebuilding been anywhere near the levels required to hit 1.5 million homes by 2029.
Yet Starmer has set his government the challenge in a bid to demonstrate he will not sit in what he described as the “tepid bath of managed decline”. Whether voters will reward him for it, very much remains to be seen.
Hamish McRae: The i Paper’s economics commentator
The reaction of financial markets to the Prime Minister’s reset was brisk and brutal. Absolutely nothing happened. Shares were flat, with FTSE100 at lunchtime just a few points adrift of the opening level. Gilts barely moved, with the 10-year yield climbing from 4.25 per cent to 4.28 per cent, and then falling back. The pound climbed a bit during the morning to above $1.27 but was totally level after he spoke.
Their message was this: we are not interested in what you say; we will judge you and your Government by what you do.
It was not so much a case of his renewed commitment to achieving the fastest growth in the G7 being disbelieved, or more general scepticism about the Government’s competence. The money managers who move the markets are grown-ups and they know it usually takes a while for any new government to find its feet.
But the markets are reflecting the wider concerns of the business community, post Rachel Reeves’s Budget, that there is a huge gap between rhetoric and reality.
Back in April she said a Labour government would be “the most pro-business government this country has ever seen”.
That now seems absurd, and there is nothing Starmer can say that will persuade business and finance that he and the Chancellor understand the damage they have caused.
Katy Balls: The i Paper columnist and political editor at The Spectator
While no one in government wants to call Keir Starmer’s speech a reset moment, aides won’t deny a lot of work went into today’s event: polling, planning, speech practice.
The Prime Minister has been supported by his most senior aide, Morgan McSweeney and his most trusted minister Pat McFadden in thrashing out the so-called “Plan for Change”. In the flashy Pinewood film studio, Starmer’s official deputy Angela Rayner took inspiration from her surroundings, saying it would take a “superhero” effort to clean up the mess left by the Conservatives.
However, Starmer may wonder if it was worth the time and effort. Already the Labour leader is facing criticism from all sides over his “six milestones”, which include higher living standards, 1.5 million new homes and a reduced clean power target.
He’s accused of backsliding on clean power and growth and missing immigration off entirely, despite it being a key voter concern. Starmer responded that immigration remains important and that growth underpins everything.
Meanwhile, there are worries from some Starmer supporters that the targets – such as cutting NHS waiting lists to 18 weeks between referral and treatment – are too ambitious and that he could go the way of Rishi Sunak. The former PM set out five priorities and then spent the following year being accused of failing in his task.
Starmer’s delivery, too, was lacking. “Not feeling that inspired,” commented one Labour MP mid-speech. The Prime Minister repeated various old soundbites as he talked about the need for change.
It means it’s hard to see this as a lightning bolt moment that will reverse Starmer’s falling approval ratings. But that’s not to say it’s an entirely pointless exercise – even if it is unlikely to move the dial in the near future. The hope of Starmer and his team will be that by setting out specific targets they will find it easier to move the Whitehall machine to their will – something they have so far struggled to do.
If they can do this, Starmer will have achievements to point to in the years to come – but it is no sure thing.
Mark Wallace: The i Paper columnist and Chief Executive of Total Politics Group
A prime minister has limited opportunity to communicate what they intend to do, how they’ll do it, and how and when to judge their performance. Sir Keir Starmer currently risks confusing matters.
Pay close attention: this is his Plan for Change. It includes missions. It isn’t the same as his manifesto and its pledges. Nor is it the same as his previously stated priorities. Some of the missions have targets, while some match manifesto pledges but with watered down goals (on clean energy, for example).
We should believe this plan, and assess him on it, but that does not mean previous promises were untrue or should be forgotten.
Got it? Me neither.
He instantly had to explain why his priority of controlling borders didn’t feature in the main missions. His story is becoming convoluted, which weakens its effectiveness.
Any one set of his goals, priorities, pledges or missions would be fine for campaigning and governing. He just can’t use them all at once.
As politicians do, he modestly accepted criticisms of his plan as “brave” and “ambitious”. Lacking, though, was any account of why the early months have been so turbulent, nor – worryingly for Labour – any reason to think the future will be smoother.
