EARLY on in his leadership Starmer said proudly: “There is no such thing as Starmerism.” But nobody took him entirely seriously. After all, how could you be the leader of one of western Europe’s leading political parties and have no notion of political ideology? We now know.

Initially party members thought Starmer had a set of political beliefs. As part of his leadership campaign, he had circulated 10 pledges to Labour Party members.

These included: economic justice; social justice; climate justice; promotion of peace and human rights; common ownership; defence of migrants’ rights; strengthening of workers’ rights and trade unions; radical devolution of power, wealth and furthermore opportunity, equality; and effective opposition to the Tories.

It was all very impressive. The problem was that Starmer had no intention of fulfilling of his pledges.

Now, the country needs an alternative to “Starmerism.”

A thorough rejection of Starmerism is also a necessary precondition for any revival of the fortunes of the Labour Party. Unfortunately, unless decisive action is taken, calamity beckons for both the country and the party.

Most MPs love nothing more than talking about themselves and their own goings on. In part, the fans of parliamentary soap opera are doing the same thing as fans of TV soaps: they are an escape from a grim reality. The same is true of the parliamentary and political commentators, and increasingly the media as a whole.

The danger in this situation is that Westminster psychodramas tend to suffocate all other issues, when urgent discussion is required about the multiple crises facing this country and the wider world.  

In effect, we need to look beyond Starmerism, to identify how to address these crises.

Part of the problem is defining Starmerism itself because, from the beginning, he never had any coherent ideology. The 10 pledges were drawn up to appeal to party members and dumped soon after he had won the leadership election.

There is nothing to be gleaned from his public statements, articles or speeches on that front. Instead, more like a David Cameron or Boris Johnson premiership, the governing ideas must be inferred from his actions.

If we judge Starmer on his actions, the verdict is clear. Even taking into account a small number of relatively minor concessions forced on him, like removing the two-child benefit cap and a modest improvement in workers’ rights, Starmer’s is the most reactionary premiership of the post-WWII era.

We have gone to war now three times, all undeclared, with no parliamentary vote, and no end in sight. Nato is at war with Russia in Ukraine, which is why there are Trump-Putin talks about a ceasefire.

Britain supported the genocide in Gaza with arms to Israel, intelligence gathering and political support. That went so far that the Prime Minister publicly justified Israel cutting off food, water and medicines to Gaza, which are war crimes.

Now Britain is supporting the US-Israeli war on Iran, with the US using RAF bases for its heavy bombers (denied to them by Spain and Italy), further intelligence, and shooting down Iranian retaliatory fire, so as to help protect the US and Israel in their war efforts.

Politically, the British government and EU leaders complain about the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and criticise Iran, even though it is the US which is mounting the blockade.

Wars have wide political consequences. Genocide in Gaza caused a political upheaval in this country, fracturing the Labour Party to its left. Inflation prior to the Ukraine war caused a massive strike wave in this country amid falling living standards, and it is now the excuse for a massive war drive.

The political consequences of the Iran war are not yet easily identifiable, but given the likely effects on living standards, they are sure to be significant.

The economic problems will be severe enough. Prices jumped sharply in March in response to the surge in the oil price, and crude prices have risen further since.

Shortages of essentials may soon arise, especially given the impact of the blockade on shipments of fertilisers.

Even prior to the bombing and the blockade, the British economy was close to stagnation. Living standards are falling, and despite the ministerial boasts, poverty is rising under a Labour government.

This is hardly surprising, as every fiscal event since Labour came to office has been an austerity one.

According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the decision to keep the freeze on income tax thresholds alone will raise an additional £50 billion a year in 2027/28, an enormous hit to the incomes of ordinary workers struggling to keep pace with inflation.

Cuts to support for disabled people, including to personal independence payments (PIP) which help them to work, have now become normalised.

In terms of social policy, the most prominent feature of government policy is classic racist scapegoating of asylum-seekers and immigrants. “Smashing the gangs” is not a policy, just a permanent campaign slogan aimed at refugees. The swathe of new anti-immigration rules would have made previous Tory administrations envious.  

People who have lived and worked here for a long time can be deported. Others who assumed the rules meant something find they no longer qualify for the right to remain, and employers are handed the whip hand over anyone with a work visa.

It is toxic stuff which is politically feeding the far right and deterring Labour’s own supporters.

In addition, to prevent any sustained or organised resistance, there is a conveyor belt of measures to clamp down on free speech, the right to assemble and the right to protest. The cutting edge of this is the effort to block pro-Palestine mobilisations.

But recent legislation severely curbs repeat or disruptive protests, which can easily be used against all sorts of protests, pickets and demonstrations. It can be used in all sorts of draconian ways by reactionary governments, and no doubt will be.

We should be clear that all of this is only benefiting the right and the far right.

Labour lost two-thirds of the seats it was trying to defend in the May 2025 elections, when it was level with Reform UK in national opinion polls. Starmer vowed then to go further and faster in the same direction. Now it is eight points behind (April’s Ipsos poll has Labour at 19 per cent to 25 per cent for Reform UK).

It should be clear that Starmer’s days are numbered. But what of Starmerism?

A key reason why he can cling on is that all his would-be successors have failed to articulate a substantive alternative, or even worse, believe a change of personality at the top is enough. So, we now have the spectacle of self-styled leaders of the left embracing welfare cuts.

It should be clear that simply tinkering with Starmerism will not avert calamity either for the country or for the Labour Party. We are facing wipeout and Reform UK in the next government without a complete reorientation of government policy.

Diane Abbott is MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington and Mother of the House of Commons.