Turmoil at No 10 shows governing is a tough call

A prime minister on the brink. Backbenchers in a state of constant ferment. Cabinet ministers quietly preparing for a leadership contest behind closed doors.

For officials in Whitehall, the latest psychodrama enveloping Number 10 feels wearily familiar. Sir Keir Starmer may have promised to usher in a new era where politics trod more lightly on people’s lives, but he is falling into precisely the same traps as his Tory predecessors.

Despite winning the general election with a landslide majority, his premiership has been defined by U-turns – no fewer than 14 and counting. And he has found himself embroiled in a succession of scandals.

In a political environment where turmoil has become the norm, the fundamental business of government – making policy and delivering it – has become ever more challenging.

There have now been six prime ministers over the past decade, all with differing priorities. The situation is even worse in government departments: 10 home secretaries, 10 education secretaries and eight chancellors in the same period. Some lasted a matter of days.

Officials are exhausted by the churn. Every incoming minister is welcomed with a meticulously prepared briefing pack detailing their predecessor’s priorities and the broader political landscape. All too often, they discover the new arrival has an entirely different vision.

The hope in Whitehall had been that a new government with a commanding majority would restore stability and focus attention on governing. It has proved to be anything but. Business confidence has suffered. The combination of policy decisions – notably the increase in employers’ National Insurance and new employment regulations – and heightened political uncertainty has led to sharp declines in sentiment across major business surveys.

Financial markets have also grown jittery amid speculation that Starmer’s successor will be far more left-wing and take a looser approach to the fiscal rules. When leadership rival Andy Burnham called in September 2025 for a significant increase in government borrowing, bond yields spiked.

It has not been helped by Starmer himself. He entered office with a deliberately streamlined manifesto, part of the so-called “Ming vase” strategy to avoid mistakes before the election.

However, it meant that Labour was relatively light on policy, exacerbated by a sheer lack of planning for government. It rapidly descended into incoherence. Upon entering, Starmer set out five “missions” as his guiding principles. These morphed into milestones, then into a broader “plan for change”.

At one point, Downing Street had more than 30 different priorities, all of which were viewed as essential. Only recently has the prime minister dropped them in favour of one above all: tackling the cost of living.

Starmer has also learnt the hard way the limits of his political power. He has repeatedly tried to use his majority to push through contentious policies, only to meet a singular and immovable obstacle – his own MPs.

One of his first U-turns was on scrapping winter fuel payments for pensioners. The policy hit millions on the cusp of poverty. It is now seen as one of his most significant misjudgements, and one that alienated a key group of voters. The government then attempted to reform disability benefits.

Labour backbenchers accused ministers of balancing the books on the backs of the vulnerable. This time, the rebellion was even bigger, with more than 100 Labour MPs publicly opposing the plans. Once again, he was forced into a U-turn. Today welfare reform, arguably the most significant policy challenge facing the nation, appears impossible.

By contrast, the policies that have succeeded are those aligned with backbenchers’ values: imposing VAT on private schools, expanding free breakfast clubs and childcare, and scrapping the two-child benefit cap after yet another revolt. Most carry a significant cost to the Exchequer.

One area where Starmer and the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, are investing significant political capital is a reset of relations with the EU. Number 10 believes the time is right. Polls suggest Britons are now overwhelmingly in favour of closer relations and there are significant economic gains.

Business groups are strongly supportive. More than half of UK exporters recently told the British Chambers of Commerce they are not satisfied with the current trade deal and that it was failing to help them grow. Negotiations are being conducted largely in private, but there has been progress in reducing red tape for exporters.

Ministers are pushing for a deal on youth mobility that will enable young Britons to live and work in the EU and vice versa. Yet the politics are fraught. Reform UK is likely to argue that it will represent a return to free movement, seeking to reignite Brexit-era divisions.

For Starmer, matters are going from bad to worse. He remains one of the most unpopular prime ministers on record – second only to Liz Truss – and the Mandelson scandal has the potential to prove fatal. Although he is expected to survive until the May elections, many cabinet ministers and backbenchers believe he is on borrowed time.

He has attempted to shift the blame for his failures onto “the blob”, arguing that he pulls the levers of power without effect. His Tory predecessors all blamed the system too. History suggests they should have looked closer to home.

Any successor will face the same problems. Once they arrive in Number 10, they will quickly discover that attempting to push through contentious policies at a time of deep-rooted political instability and geopolitical turmoil can be a Sisyphean task.