Starmer and the Blackbox

This month’s reset speech from the “boring” “managerial” “supine” “genocidaire” who hates irregular migrants and refugees while “bending over backwards for them” should have been cathartic. Here was our chance to make the maniacally boring Starmer beg for mercy.

I just felt uncomfortable. Starmer looked like a man at his wit’s end. He seems ordinary, likeable, and emotionally stable. He says kind things like we should be nicer to Jewish folk, or that we needed to watch Adolescence to appreciate the harms of misogyny. Why would anyone enjoy publicly skewering a person like that?  

I personally enjoyed his reminiscence about being a socialist at university on Desert Island Discs, in 2020. He seemed like a strong successor to Corbyn then; he championed similar policies, without the baggage of Jeremy. Yet in 2026, Labour wants him gone. The reason? He cannot bring about “real change”. Well, why not? 

The “Real Change” Ordinary Britons Want 

Most British people want mundane stuff. These are a good education with a clear pathway to gainful, balanced, and purposeful employment. They want freedom to express one’s identity. They want a decent disposable income and choice in certain goods or services.

They want to own a home and a vehicle. People want peace of mind that their family and friends will prosper into the future. They want to access vital government services without delay or stress. They want to feel real belonging and agency in a local community, and a wider economic-cultural nation. 

These things now seem like a mirage. Getting a “good” education seems irrelevant, as achieving employment of any kind seems an increasingly murky task. Minorities feel threatened by expressing their identity. Work-derived disposable incomes are disappearing. Many people cannot conceive of mortgaging a home or a car in the UK until they reach midlife. Accessing services like PIP benefits or GP appointments feels Herculean. Geographically bound communities and shared cultural-economic spaces seem to have disappeared. “Real change” means to fix these things.  

What Stopped Starmer Delivering “Real Change”? 

Two years after entering the Whitewall/Westminster blackbox, a lot of people do not think the Prime Minister’s outputs are worthy of the title “real change”. There are five common theories as to what stopped him delivering. 

The most popular seems to be the problem is Starmer. In this theory, Starmer walked into the blackbox, found the civil servants eager to work, but in his excitement, he forgot his convictions and manifesto policies. Emergency piecemeal work was needed to cover over this, and now the only solution is to replace him. 

Another theory is that it has nothing to do with the Prime Minister, but it was the fault of increased pluralism outside the blackbox. Power held by regional parliaments, regulators, and human rights’ bodies leaves the Ministers powerless but still accountable. We need to de-pluralise or politicise these bodies as a solution. 

Another theory is that the general public is too demanding of the blackbox. They demand for no tax rises but better service provision, or don’t want to work in low-paid jobs in social care or hospitality, while also saying immigrants can’t do those jobs either. The solution is the electorate just needs to go away and be more realistic/grateful. 

Another theory is that the blackbox is the problem. Senior Civil Servants prioritise policy over management, HR, procurement, or operations. They feel threatened by expertise on key topics. They resist reform to make them non-neutral, performance accountable, open to real innovation, and unable to “churn”. The solution is genuine reform.  

The final theory is that the modern blackbox works as designed; it serves London’s power-elite, and purposefully dismantled Starmer’s biggest ambitions, thus maintaining the neoliberal order. The solution is to reverse-engineer the blackbox, so it serves the electorate and dismantles the ambitions of the power-elite. 

So, Which One Is It? 

The least convincing of the theories is the blame placed on the general populace. Too often they lampoon “poor people” as an immigrant-hating monolith. Without genuine consideration of nuance or policy innovations, how can the electorate fairly be considered at fault in this theory? 

It is less convincing that formal power pluralism has stopped the British Prime Minister from bringing about “real change”. Prime Ministers with a parliamentary majority have the power to bypass even devolved entities – Westminster still largely plays host to an elected dictatorship.  

Somewhat convincing is that Starmer was never the man for our moment. He seems to have made false policy trade-offs, watered down key convictions, or become distracted at times. Yet Prime Ministers are first among many equals – they are not CEOs. Not one of his equals could have better supported him to avoid those decisions? 

More convincing is that the Senior Civil Service needs genuine reform. Without concrete objectives, prioritisation of policy, “churn”, and refusal to accept outside expertise, it seems obvious delivery would suffer. Yet surely charismatic Ministers or their influential parties could talk civil servants into reform, if they merely held a misplaced insolence?   

Most convincing is that Starmer’s failure is a product of power-elite control. Reformist projects, such as Senior Civil Service reform, are antithetical. Major projects can only be delivered via questionable PFI contracts – see Citibank and the Skye Toll Bridge; Palantir and the NHS; or one of the many cases in George Monbiot’s Captive State.  

It is probable that Keir Starmer walked into the blackbox ready to deliver “real change”. He encountered some quite bad things, crumpled, and was contorted into his current position. He is now being forcibly ejected from the blackbox, having “played his part”. 

If the solution is to reverse engineer the blackbox, not just swapping out the Keir component for a Streeting semiconductor, then everyday communities must calmly and carefully take the blackbox apart, have an attentive look, and put it back together with a few innovative modifications. In this tired metaphor, they should use some CAD software to help.

Image: Flickr/No 10 Downing Street (Simon Dawson)

Licence.

No image changes made.