Starmerism: How is it different from Blairism?

In brief...

• Some of the policies outlined in the Kings Speech show a direct difference between the thinking of Tony Blair and Keir Starmer.
• Lewis Goodall says we would 'never' have seen the railways coming under public ownership under Blair.
• The new Labour government's approach may be influenced by a lack of money, which wasn't an issue for Blair's government.

Blairism. Starmerism. Brownite. All terms that have filtered from the press into the political mainstream, and all used to describe the principles followed by certain prime ministers.

Blairism has been discussed and dissected in the years since Tony Blair left Downing Street. Brownite had a shorter crack of the whip, while Starmerism is a new one people are now getting to grips with.

But what does it mean? And how is it different to Blairism, or being a 'Brownite'?

What is Blairism and Starmerism?

Blairism hinged on big investment in public services, and focusing on education to promote social mobility in later life. It encouraged more law enforcement powers, was exceptionally keen on close ties with the United States and "liberal interventionism", which was highlighted in the UK's involvement in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It stood against the nationalisation of industries.

Blairism is often used in close alignment with 'Brownite', the difference between the two is slim. Brownite most commonly only represents a Labour member who preferred Gordon Brown over Tony Blair as leader.

Starmerism is a little trickier to pin down, with less than two weeks of the Labour Prime Minister to assess – but this is also muddled by Starmer's shift from the left to a more centrist stance on his politics. In a 2023 interview with Time magazine, when asked to define Starmerism himself, Starmer said it was to recognise the UK economy needed to be fixed, that climate change must be tackled, public services reformed and that every child must have the best opportunities and safe spaces to grow up in.

He has also defined Starmerism as being critical of an "over centralised" Britain, and having a focus on minimising the impact of Brexit, upping participation in the labour market and making the construction planning process easier.

A handful of Labour MPs, who entered Parliament after the results of the July election had previously served under Blair and Brown.

Some of the lines between Blairism and Starmerism were clearly drawn this week in the King's speech, when Prince Charles announced Labour's policy plans to Parliament.

One of the key elements was to bring the UK's rail networks under public ownership, something which would never have happened under Blair. The same goes for Starmer's Great British Energy plan, which will be a publicly-owned company which runs clean energy projects across the country.

"We wouldn't have seen something like Great British Energy in the Blair/Brown days," says Lewis Goodall.

"We would never have seen the railways coming back into public ownership, they would have been far more circumspect about an industrial policy and so on."

Of course, as Starmer and his government have told the public time and time again, there is very little money for the new government to play with.

"The way in which Blair and Brown were much more old Labour, in some sense, is they were happy to flash the cash," Lewis continues.

"They could do so, they had the cash. When they wanted to intervene, on big projects, when they did, they backed it up with a load of cash."

He describes their approach as "tax and spend" and as anyone who followed the pre-election debates will know, Labour have denied any plans to raise taxes.

"Whether Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves would like to do that if they had the money, that's a separate question," Lewis adds.

"They probably would, but they don't feel they do have the money."

Jon agrees, and says the situation Starmer's government finds itself in "speaks of the different historical times that we were in then, and we're in today."

"Then, the whole idea of globalisation was seen as the most wonderful thing, that these kind of emerging economies – Indonesia, Vietnam, South Africa – wherever it happened to be – would be the engines of economic growth, which would lead to great new export markets for the UK and selling of services and all the rest of it, we'd give up on manufacturing, it would all be fine."

"Then you see the financial crash, where you're thinking: 'Oh, my God, maybe we do need to intervene, maybe we do need to be protecting some of our industries a bit more'."

Listen to the discussion in full on The News Agents.