Starmer's options in the last chance saloon

Resign, be removed, or find the "wow" factor

Labour can win the next general election.

That statement should not be condemned as a blind refusal to accept recent polls. The story these tell is, indeed, bleak. To be ahead in only 85 seats, according to the latest More in Common poll for the Sunday Times – the lowest yet in any seat-projection survey in this parliament – is plainly catastrophic.

Despite all that, here are one specific fact about Labour’s current level of support, and one specific proposal for change in 2026.

The fact arises from a gap in every year-end analysis I have read of Labour’s plight. The party ended 2025 with just 18 per cent support, the joint lowest of any party of government. (The last time was in May 2009, when Gordon Brown was prime minister. The polling figures in this analysis come from Ipsos, formerly, Mori, which has the longest continuous series of voting intentions.)

However, contrary to some year-end commentaries, Labour has NOT fallen further than any other government. Its 17-point drop (from 35 per cent in the last general election) is by no means unusual. In the past fifty years, five governments have suffered bigger falls, ranging from the Conservatives’ 18 point drop (45 to 27 per cent) in 1981, when Margaret Thatcher was prime minister, to 26 points (45 to 19 per cent) during Rishi Sunak’s 2024 election campaign.

How past governments have recovered

More important is what happened to governments after they hit rock bottom. The following table shows the eventual fate of each party whose support at their lowest point was more than ten percentage points below that in the previous election.

The first and most obvious point is that every government has recovered to some extent – even in the last election, when the Tories still crashed to their worst ever defeat. Apart from that, the minimum recovery was nine points, the average 14. Apply those figures to Labour’s present plight, and the party might expect to end up with at least 27 per cent, and plausibly 32 per cent.

Here’s the thing. British politics has changed. Those percentages used to lead to heavy defeats. The Tories won big victories in 1982 (when Labour won 28 per cent), 1987 (32 per cent) and 2019 (33 per cent). These days, 32 per cent could give Labour a majority. On 27 per cent it might still be the largest party in the new House of Commons. (Much depends on tactical voting and how evenly the right-of-centre vote divides between Reform and the Conservatives.)

Indeed, as the table shows, again excluding 2024, four of the six governments that had suffered badly in mid-term went on to retain power in the following election.

In short, Labour’s poll rating should be judged not just by the popularity of past governments, but by the context of today’s multi-party competition and the new arithmetic of election winning posts. We cannot rule out a recovery that puts Labour in the running to win a second term in office.

Against that are possible headwinds that impede such a recovery.

** Labour might not yet have reached rock bottom. If it slips to, say, 15 per cent, then a nine-point recovery would not be enough.

** Past governments have faced little competition from their side of the left-right divide. This time, Labour has lost support both to the left (Greens, Liberal Democrats and Welsh and Scottish nationalists) and the right (Conservatives and Reform). Fighting six parties on two fronts is harder than seeing off a single opposition party.

** Three of the four governments in the table that won the following election were helped by specific events: the Falklands war in 1982, and changes of prime minister in 1990 (Thatcher to John Major) and 2019 (Theresa May to Boris Johnson). These were also the three governments with the largest recoveries.

How Labour can fight back

History, then, suggests that recovery is possible, albeit not easy. The key ingredient to the big recoveries – those on the scale that Labour now needs – is change. Now “change” is an elastic word that politicians invoke all the time. Here it means something big and specific. It means voters viewing the government in a completely different way. The Falklands War transformed Thatcher’s reputation; new prime ministers in 1990 and 2019 opened new chapters in Britain’s political story. All three changes had the “wow” factor.

That is what Labour needs now, especially given the headwinds it faces. The prime minister may believe that a reminder of past government recoveries should be enough to quell the discontent in Labour’s ranks at Westminster. That is precisely the wrong conclusion. Steady as we go has never worked for governments in trouble. (The 1983-87 parliament might not have had a war or change of prime minister, but it saw the most far-reaching “Thatcherite” reforms that appealed to enough voters to win her third victory.) History shows that recovery is possible. It also highlights the need for radical change.

Here are two ways in which Labour could change enough to retain power at the next election.

The first is to change leader. That, though, is not a big enough “wow” factor in itself. Ask Brown or Sunak. And even the biggest “wow” factor might turn voters off if it’s the wrong kind. Ask Liz Truss.

Downing Street’s new tenant would need a better story to tell, one that persuades voters to look afresh at the government’s plans for improving daily life and securing Britain’s future. A new gloss on existing plans won’t work. The plans themselves must change. Johnson unlocked the door to Brexit; Major scrapped the poll tax. And both men offered a contrast in style with predecessors that had lost the confidence of the electorate. The “wow” factor came both from who they were and what they did.

The alternative route to recovery is for Starmer himself to summon the “wow” factor while remaining prime minister. The most obvious issue is Europe. Most of the voters he needs to win back are strongly opposed to Brexit. They know it is damaging the economy. There is a strong case for Britain resuming its place at the heart of a strengthened Europe, less reliant on the United States. He could announce that his long-term goal is a democratic decision, at an election or referendum, to rejoin the EU.

There are other candidates for radical change, such as social care, tax reform, welfare, immigration, health care and the quality of our democracy. The key thing here is not to insist on any one particular subject but to argue the basic case for a change that is big, dramatic and courageous, and seen to be all three. Starmer’s motto should be “but me no buts”, as Shakespeare never wrote. (Hands up who knew its author was the eighteenth century playwright Susanna Centlivre.)

In his new year article for the Sunday Times, Starmer gave no sign that he will do any such thing. He referred to “turning the corner” – creating a vague impression of change while, in fact, carrying on as before. “Is that it?” is a more appropriate response than “wow”.

Perhaps the buggest test of real change is to be seen to fight the right enemies. So, if he is to go big on Europe – going much further than edging slightly closer to the Single Market – Starmer would need to provoke the Brexiters at Westminster and in the media to outright and sustained fury, not try to reason with critics who will never be satisfied. Would he be taking a risk? Absolutely – and that’s the point. The very essence of courage is to do something that might not come off. Starmer’s prospects come down to this. No courage, no “wow” factor – and no “wow” factor, no hope.

(A different leader would also need courage. It is more necessary and difficult for Starmer, for he needs to admit to having been wrong, or too timid, or at the very least changing his mind about decisions for which he has been personally responsible for the past 18 months.)

If Starmer needs a role model, he should try Franklin Roosevelt. In New York’s Madison Square Gardens in 1936, in his final speech in his campaign for re-election, he rounded on forces ranged against him:

Business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering…. Organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.

Roosevelt did not name them, but everyone knew who he was referring to: bankers such as JP Morgan and industrial giants such as Du Pont, General Motors, Standard Oil and US Steel. They had been resisting FDR’s progressive New Deal policies ever since he was first elected four years earlier. Instead of seeking to accommodate them, he was declaring war.

Starmer needs to be equally belligerent. Compare Roosevelt’s language with the prime minister’s conference speech three months ago. Starmer deplored “the politics of grievance”, “racism”, “the path of decline”, “snake oil merchants”, “the tide of decline”, “a status quo that manifestly failed working people”, “the establishment”, “division”, “austerity” and “self-appointed champions of the working people”. All nameless, amorphous, above all safe, enemies that nobody would admit refers to them personally. Opposing them doesn’t take courage, merely a speech-writer with a thesaurus.

Will Starmer cast aside his caution and rediscover the courage that enabled him to see off Jeremy Corbyn? Can he define a bold new course and identify the new enemies he plans to fight? If he won’t deliver the “wow” factor, Labour needs a new leader who will.

PS. For a New Year treat, some readers may recall the scene in Love Actually in which the prime minister, played by Hugh Grant, hosts a meeting with the American president, played by Billy Bob Thornton, followed by a press conference:

Reporter: Mr. President, has it been a good visit?

President: Very satisfactory indeed. We got what we came for, and our special relationship is still very special.

Reporter: Prime minister?

PM: I love that word “relationship.” Covers all manner of sins, doesn’t it? I fear that this has become a bad relationship; a relationship based on the President taking exactly what he wants and casually ignoring all those things that really matter to, erm... Britain. We may be a small country, but we’re a great one, too. The country of Shakespeare, Churchill, the Beatles, Sean Connery, Harry Potter. David Beckham’s right foot. David Beckham’s left foot, come to that. And a friend who bullies us is no longer a friend. And since bullies only respond to strength, from now onward I will be prepared to be much stronger. And the President should be prepared for that.