Top News

Reform UK's Ann Widdecombe believes Sir Keir Starmer's Labour Party is floundering because he has inherited a mess far bigger than anything Tony Blair faced in 1997-and lacks the political instinct to manage it. Ms Widdecombe, who served as the Conservative MP for Maidstone and The Weald from 1987 to 2010, argues that the two Labour governments are "not comparable", explaining that Mr Blair's team came to power with what she called a "golden economic legacy"-low unemployment, low interest rates, and historically tame inflation.

Ms Widdecombe, who served as former Minister of State for Prisons and Employment under John Major, said Sir Keir Starmer's Labour, by contrast, has stepped into "the tail end of Covid and a very large mess indeed," with mounting public debt and an overstretched NHS - although she also emphasised her lack of sympathy for Chancellor Rachel Reeves. Ms Widdecombe added that internal divisions are also a critical challenge for Starmer. She told The Express: "There's now an enormous left wing in the Labour Party-the Corbynistas-who are very active."

She nevertheless acknowledged that Mr Blair "had the God-given wit to appoint John Prescott as his deputy, and they somehow managed to hold together because they'd been out of office for 18 years and were desperate".

Sir Keir lacks the political dexterity to navigate his party's ideological fault lines, Ms Widdecombe suggested.

She said: "Blair understood what Starmer does not: the country doesn't want socialism. It wants Tory policies, but it doesn't always want the Tories. Blair effectively said, 'Look, we're not socialists, but we're not the Tories.'"

Kemi Badenoch recently branded Sir Keir "rudderless" following a series of high-profile policy u-turns-including recent climbdowns on mandatory digital IDs and business rates for pubs.

Ms Widdecombe further questioned the calibre of Starmer's senior figures compared with Mr Blair's team. She dismissed Ms Reeves' "black hole" argument as philosophically misguided while admitting Mr Blair had "people like Betty Boothroyd-okay, she was Speaker-but you had Jack Straw, David Blunkett. People who were competent. Keir doesn't appear to have those people."

Current Labour faces a leadership team with less political heft, leaving Sir Keir without trusted lieutenants to carry his message or enforce discipline, Ms Widdecombe continued. Even Gordon Brown was part of a government with structure and purpose, despite what she saw as his failings as Chancellor.

Comparing him with Ms Reeves, Ms Widdecombe said: "I don't have sympathy with Rachel Reeves. "I think the philosophy that she's bringing to it is all wrong.

"If you gave me a choice between the two, I'd rather have Brown, but he was not a wonderful Chancellor. He left behind a series of failures. However, Blair had people.

By contrast, Sir Keir appeared to lack both talent around him and a unifying strategy, leaving Labour exposed to public scepticism and internal squabbles.

Ms Widdecombe continued: "They face a different situation. Blair had a massively easy economic situation," pointing to the growth and optimism that helped Labour in 1997.

Sir Keir has faced mounting criticism for failing to define Labour in a way which resonates with voters and his attempts to position Labour as fiscally responsible while promising investment in public services have been portrayed as muddled.

The comparison with 1997 simply highlighted the contrast, she continued. While Mr Blair inherited public desire for change and a coherent team; Sir Keir has inherited debt, pandemic aftershocks, and a fractious party. Unless he can stabilise his team and articulate a vision that balances realism with ambition, Labour risks continual failure, Ms Widdecombe stressed.

She concluded: "The country wants competence, and they want clarity. Starmer has neither at the moment."