What He Actually Is
Not a hidden communist
He prosecuted Julian Assange as Director of Public Prosecutions. He expelled the Labour left systematically. He dropped every policy commitment he made to win the leadership in 2020, including free broadband, abolishing tuition fees, common ownership and ending outsourcing, within eighteen months of winning it. A communist does not do any of that.
Not a Conservative in disguise
He genuinely believes in workers' rights legislation, public ownership of some utilities, and the NHS as a public institution. The Employment Rights Bill is real and significant. A Conservative government would not have passed it. These are not performances. They are real commitments, even if isolated ones.
The accurate description is a managerialist who mistakes caution for pragmatism. He believes his job is to demonstrate that Labour can be trusted with the economy and institutions, which in practice means accepting the Conservative framing of what economic responsibility looks like and trying to be a competent administrator of the existing settlement rather than changing it.
This is what produces the neither left nor right incoherence that Wes Streeting identified from inside the cabinet before he resigned. It is not triangulation in the Blair sense. Blair genuinely believed in something and triangulated to get there. Starmer's caution is not strategic positioning toward a destination. It is caution as the destination. Safety is the policy.
The Specific Evidence
Taxed workers via businesses, exactly what a fiscally conservative government does when it needs revenue and will not tax wealth directly. Raised £25bn. Youth unemployment hit 16% within a year.
Maintained it for months despite clear evidence it keeps children in poverty. Eventually reversed under enormous pressure. Not a left instinct. Not a right one either. Just institutional inertia combined with fear of headlines.
Announced mandatory ID cards as essential policy. Called it not British three months later. Dropped it. Not ideologically driven. It was a solution looking for a problem, which is the instinct of someone who thinks governing is primarily a technical exercise.
A human rights lawyer who trained as a barrister, served as Director of Public Prosecutions, and built a career on the application of law to state conduct found it impossible to say whether Israeli military operations violated international humanitarian law when the International Court of Justice, senior UN officials, and legal scholars had all made findings. This is the clearest evidence of the absence of ideology. An ideologue of either stripe would have taken a position.
Inherited a system costing £5.77m per day. Announced hotels would end by 2029. A minister asked on Radio 4 what the alternative would be refused to answer. The Treasury's own spending review numbers show £2.5bn asylum costs in 2028 to 2029, the final year of the commitment. A commitment without a mechanism is not a policy.
The Employment Rights Bill is real, significant, and meaningful. It strengthens trade unions, gives workers day one rights, and limits fire and rehire. A Conservative government would not have done it. This is the one area where genuine ideology is visible.
"Where we need vision, we have a vacuum. Where we need direction, we have drift."
Wes Streeting, resignation letter, 14 May 2026The Blair Comparison
Blair triangulated from the left. He took Labour positions, public investment, social liberalism and European integration, and found the centre right framing that made them politically sellable. The result was real policy change: minimum wage, Sure Start, devolution, Good Friday Agreement, and massive public investment in schools and hospitals.
Starmer triangulates from nowhere in particular. He finds the position that offends the fewest people in the short term and calls it governing. The result is policy drift, announcements without architecture, commitments without mechanisms, and a government that can tell you what it is against but not what it is for.
The emotional register of the government, cautious, deferential to markets and institutions, suspicious of structural change, reads as conservative even when specific policies are not. Conservatism is fundamentally about preserving the existing settlement. That is what Starmer is doing, not because he is a hidden Conservative but because caution has become indistinguishable from conservatism when there is no affirmative destination behind it.
The Prosecutorial Problem
He is a prosecutorial mind in an executive role. As a barrister and as DPP he was excellent: building a case, following evidence, applying law to facts. That skill set produces a particular kind of politician, very good at identifying what is wrong with other people's positions and not very good at building an affirmative vision of his own.
You do not win cases by having a theory of the world. You win them by disproving the other side's theory. That is not how you govern. The country is not a court. The electorate is not a jury that can be convinced by a well structured closing argument. It needs to know where you are taking it.
In a direct three way leadership contest, Burnham leads on 29% against Starmer's 16% and Streeting's 8%. Among voters asked who should replace Starmer as Prime Minister, Burnham leads on 20%, with Rayner at 5% and Streeting at 3%. He leads on perceptions of competence, economic management, cost of living, and rebuilding public trust. He is the only senior political figure in the poll who has not decisively lost the public.
The Verdict
The reason Starmer's government feels right wing despite some left policies is precisely this. The policies are occasionally left. The instinct is always cautious. And caution without direction is functionally conservative, because it preserves the settlement that exists rather than building the one that is needed.
The polls are the consequence. A net approval of minus 43. A government less popular than the Conservatives were before they lost the 2024 landslide. Reform leading voting intention. Labour in third place in some polls. The electorate has not made an ideological judgment about whether Starmer is left or right. It has made a simpler judgment: that he does not know where he is going, and that they do not want to follow him there.
The Alternative: A Programme with a Destination
The contrast is not left versus right. It is purposeful versus cautious. The Burnham Programme is OBR scored, aware of bond markets, and fiscally costed, not reckless. But it builds toward something specific: HS2 to Manchester and Leeds, 500,000 social homes, courts open to 9pm, immigration processed in ten weeks, a Senate of Regions, the birth bond, and the Northern Olympics. Specific. Timed. Costed. The answer to a vacuum is content.
Read the full programme