Have no doubt, this is a reset – and the stakes couldn’t be higher for Starmer

Editorial: Tangible improvements in the NHS, cutting crime and boosting growth might persuade a frustrated electorate to give the Labour government another term. But it is not, as the PM tacitly concedes, a foregone conclusion

At last, Sir Keir Starmer has set out his much-vaunted “plan for change”, comprising a reasonable – if sometimes commendably ambitious – set of targets.

It is the kind of thing that opposition parties prepare before they enter government; all carefully costed and as candidly presented as possible, commensurate with winning an election. It comes, however, some five months after Labour took office. This is no time to be unveiling a manifesto.

His “huge” and “ambitious” speech was preceded by Angela Rayner, deputy prime minister and secretary of state for housing, communities and local government. With the stakes this high, it was no time for being cartoonish, or for comedy; so it was slightly jarring to witness the awkward tilt towards hyperbole. Ms Rayner invoked Star Wars and Superman during her warm-up routine for her boss; while Sir Keir affectionately referred to his right-hand woman as “Ange”.

This slightly arch intimacy made itself clear when – reflecting on the magical surroundings at Pinewood Studios – Ms Rayner told her audience that “cleaning up the mess we’ve inherited sounds like a job for a superhero”. The momentary anticipation that the second half of that line would be “but all we’ve got is Keir Starmer” wasn’t, however, fulfilled, whatever Ms Rayner might privately think. Sir Keir duly presented himself as ever in a sober business suit – and set about the task of re-energising his government. Again.

Approaching six months in, this Labour government seems unable to shake off the habits and the mindset of opposition. It is surprising, given that they had spent 14 years out of power; but more comprehensible when it is recalled that only a minority of the cabinet, and even fewer of the junior ministers, have any experience of government at all.

Old habits die hard. It is not that there is too little “messaging” coming out of government, but rather that there is too much: too many relaunches, too many speeches trying to turn disparate acts into a simulacrum of substance.

So it is with the latest crop of pledges in the “plan for change”, or “milestones” – on everything from house building and hospital waiting lists to frontline police officers. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with any of them; but they are, once again, beads without a string.

It is true, as many in the media pointed out directly to Sir Keir, that there’s no measurable target attached to migration, with only a promise to get legal and illegal numbers down. Yet, given the experience of many previous governments, playing the numbers game on net migration – where a government has little say in any event on outward migration – is a mug’s game that serves only to discredit politics.

Not all of the targets were woolly or easy to hit – especially the demanding job of building 1.5 million homes and completing 150 major infrastructure targets. Sir Keir was also right to move “out of character” as a former public servant himself and give notice to the civil service that soaking in the “tepid bath of managed decline” is unacceptable, as is the dismal productivity performance.

A brutal shake-up of the planning system to get the houses, reservoirs, rail lines and power stations built was once again canvassed. It needs to be legislated for without delay if these engines of growth are to support the social ambitions of the government. But it is a little strange that these targets are being unveiled only now and it makes people wonder why they had not been done before.

In fact, ironically enough, Sir Keir’s “changed” Labour Party did precisely that, in the form of the 2024 general election manifesto. The then-shadow team also elaborated on how it was to be delivered – via a series of cross-departmental “missions”; the kind of “rewiring” of the state that is now being briefed as if it was something new.

The curious thing is that some of those very manifesto pledges are now being ditched or edged into the background. The most spectacular example of that was the pledge on taxation, which strongly gave the impression that employers’ national insurance contributions – and their baleful effects on wage rises and hiring – were not about to be ramped up.

Another conspicuous casualty was the rash pledge “to secure the highest sustained growth in the G7”. Rash, that is, because the chancellor Rachel Reeves has no influence on the progress of the US, Canadian, Japanese, German, French and Italian economies – and not that much over her own. So now Sir Keir, at Prime Minister’s Questions, deftly avoids repeating what was the central aim of the central mission of his administration: growth.

Now a frankly undemanding target of raising household disposable incomes by the end of the parliament has been added as the main focus of attention – so that even the most meagre of improvements can be ticked off as a promise delivered. The government also has the backstop of a modest cut in personal taxation in the approach to the next election.

It is obviously still early days for the Starmer administration. It has indeed had a choppy time since its election and a breathtakingly short honeymoon. It has made mistakes and proved surprisingly inept at times. Some, when an opportune moment arises, should be rectified – the cut in the winter fuel allowance and inheritance tax on farms for example. Yet, “reset” or not, the prime minister seems to comprehend the scale of the task in front of him: in terms of policy, in delivery and in presentation. In due course, Sir Keir ought to be able to make speeches listing concrete achievements, rather than another batch of targets.

Tangible progress on hospital waiting lists, on immigration numbers, on boosting growth, cutting crime and improving school standards are what will provide the “narrative” and persuade a frustrated electorate to give the Labour government another term. At that point, his party might well think Sir Keir is a political superhero.

But it is not, as the PM tacitly concedes, a foregone conclusion. The stakes could not be higher for Sir Keir in this reset.