Keir Starmer’s Uncharted Potential Path to P.M: Campaign Trail to Prime Minister

[Social Media]

 

The transition from high office to Prime Minister is an unparalleled challenge, a reality Sir Keir Starmer might soon face. Despite feeling ready, the abrupt shift to the top job is often a shock, demanding immediate acclimatization. The UK’s rapid political transition, devoid of the transitional weeks seen in other countries, adds to the complexity. Tony Blair once remarked to Alastair Campbell: "Imagine preparing for a new job by working flat out traveling the country for six weeks and then go a few nights without sleep." This grueling pace underscores the demands faced by an incoming Prime Minister. Among many other demands - they are taken aside to be briefed about their role in a nuclear war.

 

If the upcoming general election follows typical patterns, either Prime Minister Keir Starmer or Prime Minister Rishi Sunak will assume their role by lunchtime the day after the vote. Both will likely be sleep-deprived, having awaited their constituencies' declarations into the small hours and managed the subsequent fallout. Sunak, if grounded in reality, would be stunned by victory, given widespread expectations of his defeat. Reelection should bring no surprises beyond avoiding the traps he set for his successor. For Starmer, the challenge is monumental, stepping into a role only 56 people have ever experienced, and even rarer when it involves a shift in governing party.

 

Holding a senior ministerial position is insufficient preparation for Number 10. Gordon Brown, despite his decade-long tenure as a powerful Chancellor of the Exchequer and considering himself a co-prime minister, found the transition overwhelming. A senior Brownite admitted, "We thought it was going to be like the Treasury only bigger. It isn't. That was handling just one thing. As prime minister, everything comes at you from all directions." Brown’s early tenure involved handling terror attacks in London and Glasgow and unexpected summer flooding across England. Unlike Harold Wilson, James Callaghan, Edward Heath, Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Sunak, Starmer has never served in government as a minister.

 

 

This lack of experience is shared with David Cameron and Blair, who had been in parliament for 14 years before becoming prime minister and a shadow minister for 10. Cameron had been an MP for nine years when elected, akin to Starmer, who became an MP in 2015. Cameron knew his way around government from his work as an aide in Conservative headquarters and for senior ministers. Starmer believes his legal career, particularly running the Crown Prosecution Service, is good preparation for the premiership. He also mentions his adaptability, having transitioned from a defense barrister to Director of Public Prosecutions.

 

A Prime Minister must swiftly transition from campaigning to managing a party, government, and country. This shift is abrupt, except for Cameron, whose hung parliament allowed five days of coalition negotiations. New prime ministers start with a clean slate of policies and numerous jobs to distribute. Blair admitted, "The disadvantage of a new government is lack of experience in governing," but also claimed it as an advantage, allowing them to "think the unthinkable" and "do the undoable." His early actions included shifting PMQs to one half-hour session a week and granting independence to the Bank of England. The significant national leaders of recent years, Thatcher, Blair, and Cameron, won reelection rather than taking over by internal party machinations. Sunak cannot join this group, but Starmer has a chance, albeit constrained by the state of the economy and promises made under Tory campaigning pressure.

 

Incoming prime ministers rely heavily on their staff, who must prepare for government even while the leader fights an election campaign. Blair’s successful transition is often credited to his team, including Chief of Staff Jonathan Powell, advisor David Miliband, Peter Mandelson, and Alastair Campbell. Mistakes can occur in job assignments, with names mixed up or post-it notes dropped. Starmer's key decision was hiring Sue Gray, a respected senior civil servant, as his chief of staff. Gray is expected to oversee Olly Robbins replacing Simon Case as cabinet secretary and will significantly influence appointing advisors and ministers. Sunak delayed allowing access talks until early this year and has now called a snap election, leaving Labour with barely six months to prepare. Some involved in preparing MPs for government worry they are not as ready as they should be. Starmer has shown ruthlessness, suggesting there may be surprises for some assuming they will be ministers. Blair's "real" reshuffle took place after a year in office.

 

The new prime minister will face unavoidable duties, including representing the UK at NATO’s 75th anniversary summit and hosting the European Political Community. Prime ministers often make unforced errors, such as Truss's mini-budget, Cameron's Brexit referendum, and Blair's Iraq invasion. They must also cope with unforeseen events like the COVID-19 pandemic. The initial shocks of becoming prime minister are likely to be overshadowed by future challenges, testing their strengths and weaknesses regardless of preparation.

 

The journey from the campaign trail to Number 10 Downing Street is daunting. The demands of the premiership require a unique blend of preparation, adaptability, and resilience. Starmer's potential transition to Prime Minister will undoubtedly be a defining moment in his political career, testing his mettle in ways few can anticipate or truly prepare for. The real test will come not in the immediate aftermath of election victory but in the years of governance that follow, where every decision and crisis will shape his legacy.

 

Credit: Sky News 2024-07-02

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

[mfd101]

Noone - including the individual concerned - can predict how anyone will perform in the top job in any organisation, large or small, public or private.

 

The timid pussy of a deputy turns in to a raging tiger. The raging tiger of a career aspirant turns in to a timid incompetent ...

 

We can all think of examples. Always fun to watch, but only from afar.

[JonnyF]

His only policy appears to be not talking about policies. 

 

If only his toolmaker father had taken a day off on 2/9/62.

 

 

[Purdey]

Helping to advise the PM is the point of civil servants. 

[NoshowJones]

On 7/2/2024 at 3:30 AM, Social Media said:

 

The transition from high office to Prime Minister is an unparalleled challenge, a reality Sir Keir Starmer might soon face. Despite feeling ready, the abrupt shift to the top job is often a shock, demanding immediate acclimatization. The UK’s rapid political transition, devoid of the transitional weeks seen in other countries, adds to the complexity. Tony Blair once remarked to Alastair Campbell: "Imagine preparing for a new job by working flat out traveling the country for six weeks and then go a few nights without sleep." This grueling pace underscores the demands faced by an incoming Prime Minister. Among many other demands - they are taken aside to be briefed about their role in a nuclear war.

 

If the upcoming general election follows typical patterns, either Prime Minister Keir Starmer or Prime Minister Rishi Sunak will assume their role by lunchtime the day after the vote. Both will likely be sleep-deprived, having awaited their constituencies' declarations into the small hours and managed the subsequent fallout. Sunak, if grounded in reality, would be stunned by victory, given widespread expectations of his defeat. Reelection should bring no surprises beyond avoiding the traps he set for his successor. For Starmer, the challenge is monumental, stepping into a role only 56 people have ever experienced, and even rarer when it involves a shift in governing party.

 

Holding a senior ministerial position is insufficient preparation for Number 10. Gordon Brown, despite his decade-long tenure as a powerful Chancellor of the Exchequer and considering himself a co-prime minister, found the transition overwhelming. A senior Brownite admitted, "We thought it was going to be like the Treasury only bigger. It isn't. That was handling just one thing. As prime minister, everything comes at you from all directions." Brown’s early tenure involved handling terror attacks in London and Glasgow and unexpected summer flooding across England. Unlike Harold Wilson, James Callaghan, Edward Heath, Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Sunak, Starmer has never served in government as a minister.

 

 

This lack of experience is shared with David Cameron and Blair, who had been in parliament for 14 years before becoming prime minister and a shadow minister for 10. Cameron had been an MP for nine years when elected, akin to Starmer, who became an MP in 2015. Cameron knew his way around government from his work as an aide in Conservative headquarters and for senior ministers. Starmer believes his legal career, particularly running the Crown Prosecution Service, is good preparation for the premiership. He also mentions his adaptability, having transitioned from a defense barrister to Director of Public Prosecutions.

 

A Prime Minister must swiftly transition from campaigning to managing a party, government, and country. This shift is abrupt, except for Cameron, whose hung parliament allowed five days of coalition negotiations. New prime ministers start with a clean slate of policies and numerous jobs to distribute. Blair admitted, "The disadvantage of a new government is lack of experience in governing," but also claimed it as an advantage, allowing them to "think the unthinkable" and "do the undoable." His early actions included shifting PMQs to one half-hour session a week and granting independence to the Bank of England. The significant national leaders of recent years, Thatcher, Blair, and Cameron, won reelection rather than taking over by internal party machinations. Sunak cannot join this group, but Starmer has a chance, albeit constrained by the state of the economy and promises made under Tory campaigning pressure.

 

Incoming prime ministers rely heavily on their staff, who must prepare for government even while the leader fights an election campaign. Blair’s successful transition is often credited to his team, including Chief of Staff Jonathan Powell, advisor David Miliband, Peter Mandelson, and Alastair Campbell. Mistakes can occur in job assignments, with names mixed up or post-it notes dropped. Starmer's key decision was hiring Sue Gray, a respected senior civil servant, as his chief of staff. Gray is expected to oversee Olly Robbins replacing Simon Case as cabinet secretary and will significantly influence appointing advisors and ministers. Sunak delayed allowing access talks until early this year and has now called a snap election, leaving Labour with barely six months to prepare. Some involved in preparing MPs for government worry they are not as ready as they should be. Starmer has shown ruthlessness, suggesting there may be surprises for some assuming they will be ministers. Blair's "real" reshuffle took place after a year in office.

 

The new prime minister will face unavoidable duties, including representing the UK at NATO’s 75th anniversary summit and hosting the European Political Community. Prime ministers often make unforced errors, such as Truss's mini-budget, Cameron's Brexit referendum, and Blair's Iraq invasion. They must also cope with unforeseen events like the COVID-19 pandemic. The initial shocks of becoming prime minister are likely to be overshadowed by future challenges, testing their strengths and weaknesses regardless of preparation.

 

The journey from the campaign trail to Number 10 Downing Street is daunting. The demands of the premiership require a unique blend of preparation, adaptability, and resilience. Starmer's potential transition to Prime Minister will undoubtedly be a defining moment in his political career, testing his mettle in ways few can anticipate or truly prepare for. The real test will come not in the immediate aftermath of election victory but in the years of governance that follow, where every decision and crisis will shape his legacy.

 

Credit: Sky News 2024-07-02

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

"Starmer has never served in government as a minister."  No, but he is a "Sir" and a multimillionaire, and there are millions of stupid working class people who will make him the next PM, then in a few months he wil get the Brown, Blair and every other Labour PM in the last 70 years treatment for being a liar and hypocrite.

[Pickwick]

17 minutes ago, NoshowJones said:

No, but he is a "Sir" and a multimillionaire, and there are millions of stupid working class people who will make him the next PM

I am not sure of your point. Working class people should not vote for Keir Starmer because he is wealthy and a Sir and went to Oxford? This type of thing? If yes, then who should they vote for? Rishi Sunak, who also went to Oxford and is also very wealthy? The Liberals, oh hang on, it's Sir Ed Davey, who also attended Oxford. What about privately educated, very wealthy (didn't go to Oxford but followed Daddy into commodities trading), man of the people, Nigel Farage? Of course, if you are in Scotland you can vote for the SNP, whose ex-chairman is up on charges of embezzlement. Best not vote for the radical Greens because there will be a green tax hike and you might end up with a LBGTQ+ Prime Minister.

 

Who should the stupid people vote for then?

[Chomper Higgot]

44 minutes ago, NoshowJones said:

"Starmer has never served in government as a minister."  No, but he is a "Sir" and a multimillionaire, and there are millions of stupid working class people who will make him the next PM, then in a few months he wil get the Brown, Blair and every other Labour PM in the last 70 years treatment for being a liar and hypocrite.

He’s a ‘Sir’ because he earned his title.

 

He’s a millionaire because he earned his money.

 

 

[NoshowJones]

7 minutes ago, Pickwick said:

I am not sure of your point. Working class people should not vote for Keir Starmer because he is wealthy and a Sir and went to Oxford? This type of thing? If yes, then who should they vote for? Rishi Sunak, who also went to Oxford and is also very wealthy? The Liberals, oh hang on, it's Sir Ed Davey, who also attended Oxford. What about privately educated, very wealthy (didn't go to Oxford but followed Daddy into commodities trading), man of the people, Nigel Farage? Of course, if you are in Scotland you can vote for the SNP, whose ex-chairman is up on charges of embezzlement. Best not vote for the radical Greens because there will be a green tax hike and you might end up with a LBGTQ+ Prime Minister.

 

Who should the stupid people vote for then?

None of them are worth voting for, all politicians are only out for themselves. I cannot think of one in the UK in my lifetime, Labour especially, they are worse liars and hypocrites than all the other parties put together.

[NoshowJones]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

He’s a ‘Sir’ because he earned his title.

 

He’s a millionaire because he earned his money.

 

 

Ha Ha Ha Ha. Earned his money?? Where?? Inherited from rich Tory parents and grandparents?? I bet a lot of it was on the backs of the working class. A Sir?? Who from?? British Royalty with chests full of fancy medals, regalia and funny hats??

[BritManToo]

21 hours ago, JonnyF said:

His only policy appears to be not talking about policies. 

I believe his main vote winning policy is ...... I am not and have never been a member of the Conservative party.

And IMHO that's enough!

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, NoshowJones said:

Ha Ha Ha Ha. Earned his money?? Where?? Inherited from rich Tory parents and grandparents?? I bet a lot of it was on the backs of the working class. A Sir?? Who from?? British Royalty with chests full of fancy medals, regalia and funny hats??

OK stick with Sunak (richer than the King), Rees-Mogg, Alexander Boris  de Pfefl Johnson and Farage.

 

All men of the people, looking after the best interests of the Working Class.

 

Edited July 3 by Chomper Higgot

[youreavinalaff]

20 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

OK stick with Sunak (richer than the King), Rees-Mogg, Alexander Boris  de Pfefl Johnson and Farage.

 

All men of the people, looking after the best interests of the Working Class.

 

Sunak is not richer than the King. 

 

He did, however, earn his own wealth. Just like Starmer. In fact, all the people you listed earned their wealth.

 

I don't see why some chose to differentiate between them all.

[RayC]

3 hours ago, NoshowJones said:

Ha Ha Ha Ha. Earned his money?? Where?? Inherited from rich Tory parents and grandparents?? I bet a lot of it was on the backs of the working class. A Sir?? Who from?? British Royalty with chests full of fancy medals, regalia and funny hats??

 

Who should be PM in your opinion?

[NoshowJones]

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Who should be PM in your opinion?

I don't give a monkeys they all only look after themselves, so I suppose the most important thing to me is anyone but a Labour one.

I am no Tory but I have bought sold four houses in the UK, a thing I could never have done under Labour.

[NoshowJones]

4 hours ago, Pickwick said:

I am not sure of your point. Working class people should not vote for Keir Starmer because he is wealthy and a Sir and went to Oxford? This type of thing? If yes, then who should they vote for? Rishi Sunak, who also went to Oxford and is also very wealthy? The Liberals, oh hang on, it's Sir Ed Davey, who also attended Oxford. What about privately educated, very wealthy (didn't go to Oxford but followed Daddy into commodities trading), man of the people, Nigel Farage? Of course, if you are in Scotland you can vote for the SNP, whose ex-chairman is up on charges of embezzlement. Best not vote for the radical Greens because there will be a green tax hike and you might end up with a LBGTQ+ Prime Minister.

 

Who should the stupid people vote for then?

Nobody. None of them are worth a trip to the polling booth.

[RayC]

11 minutes ago, NoshowJones said:

I don't give a monkeys they all only look after themselves, so I suppose the most important thing to me is anyone but a Labour one.

I am no Tory but I have bought sold four houses in the UK, a thing I could never have done under Labour.

 

Why not?

 

I brought a flat in London when the Tories were in government and sold it when Labour were in power. Neither transaction was particularly difficult.

[mfd101]

4 hours ago, NoshowJones said:

None of them are worth voting for, all politicians are only out for themselves.

Oh dear! So how are we to organize and run our huge and hugely complex societies?

[NoshowJones]

54 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Why not?

 

I brought a flat in London when the Tories were in government and sold it when Labour were in power. Neither transaction was particularly difficult.

I bought my first house when Ted Heath was PM under the Option Mortgage, the next time was under Thatcher when anyone with an average pay packet would get a mortgage. I bought and sold another two houses then came to Thailand.

[RayC]

46 minutes ago, NoshowJones said:

I bought my first house when Ted Heath was PM under the Option Mortgage, the next time was under Thatcher when anyone with an average pay packet would get a mortgage. I bought and sold another two houses then came to Thailand.

 

Fine. But how exactly are Labour responsible for you being unable to buy a property when they are in government?

[Pickwick]

1 hour ago, NoshowJones said:

I bought my first house when Ted Heath was PM under the Option Mortgage

Ted Heath!?? I wasn't even born and I ain't no spring chicken!

 

It's Keir Starmer we're talking about, not Keir Hardie 😉

[NoshowJones]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

 

Fine. But how exactly are Labour responsible for you being unable to buy a property when they are in government?

Without going through all the details, if Labour had been in power all through my adult life I would never have been able to come to live in Thailand. Think Heaths option mortgage and Thatchers gauranteed mortgage sheme in the eighties I would never have been able to buy my first two houses.

[NoshowJones]

1 hour ago, Pickwick said:

Ted Heath!?? I wasn't even born and I ain't no spring chicken!

 

It's Keir Starmer we're talking about, not Keir Hardie 😉

It's still all politics anyway.

[Chomper Higgot]

8 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

Sunak is not richer than the King. 

 

He did, however, earn his own wealth. Just like Starmer. In fact, all the people you listed earned their wealth.

 

I don't see why some chose to differentiate between them all.

It seems you might not be up to date with the numbers:

 

Sunak £651 million

King Charles £610 million

Starmer £7.7 million (which the Daily Express refer to as ‘a staggering sum’).

So Sunak is richer than King Charles and approximately 2 orders of magnitude richer than Starmer.

 

“I don't see why some chose to differentiate between them all.”

 

Perhaps you don’t understand the wealth gap and/or ‘orders of magnitude’.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-69027955.amp

 

https://time.com/6979293/king-charles-net-worth-2024/

 

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/1532935/keir-starmer-net-worth-labour-evg/amp

 

 

Edited July 3 by Chomper Higgot

[Chomper Higgot]

5 hours ago, NoshowJones said:

I don't give a monkeys they all only look after themselves, so I suppose the most important thing to me is anyone but a Labour one.

I am no Tory but I have bought sold four houses in the UK, a thing I could never have done under Labour.

What?!

 

Nobody ever bought and sold houses in the UK during a Labour Government?

 

Are you sure?!

[youreavinalaff]

45 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It seems you might not be up to date with the numbers:

 

Sunak £651 million

King Charles £610 million

Starmer £7.7 million (which the Daily Express refer to as ‘a staggering sum’).

So Sunak is richer than King Charles and approximately 2 orders of magnitude richer than Starmer.

 

“I don't see why some chose to differentiate between them all.”

 

Perhaps you don’t understand the wealth gap and/or ‘orders of magnitude’.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-69027955.amp

 

https://time.com/6979293/king-charles-net-worth-2024/

 

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/1532935/keir-starmer-net-worth-labour-evg/amp

 

 

You appear to be confusing Sunak's wealth with his wife's.

 

You commended Starmer for earning his own wealth. You didn't commend the others. That's double standards.

 

It's funny you didn't use your usual go to paper for the figures. You obviously didn't like the figures the Guardian printed as they don't fit your agenda.

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2023/apr/20/revealed-king-charless-private-fortune-estimated-at-almost-2bn

 

Edited July 3 by youreavinalaff

[NoshowJones]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What?!

 

Nobody ever bought and sold houses in the UK during a Labour Government?

 

Are you sure?!

Did I say that? I'm sure I meant that I never had the chance to buy a house under a labour government  as my first two were under special circumstances. I could have bought my last two under a labour government as I got better off financially as I got older.

[NoshowJones]

5 hours ago, NoshowJones said:

Without going through all the details, if Labour had been in power all through my adult life I would never have been able to come to live in Thailand. Think Heaths option mortgage and Thatchers gauranteed mortgage sheme in the eighties I would never have been able to buy my first two houses.

I don't blame you for being confused, I am just not going to take all the time I would need to explain everything.

[RayC]

3 hours ago, NoshowJones said:

I don't blame you for being confused, I am just not going to take all the time I would need to explain everything.

 

You're talking to yourself!😉