Is Starmer the worst PM in history?

This is an edited version of an article that appeared in The Yorkshire Post on 5 May 2026 in which Matt Bromley argues that Starmer is wrestling with inherited dysfunction…

I write these columns a couple of weeks before they’re published. Commenting on politics is therefore an act of faith because it’s hard to know how the landscape will have shifted by the time you read this. Today I refer to Keir Starmer as the prime minister, but you may know him as the former prime minister because, at time of writing, he’s embroiled in a scandal about his hiring of Peter Mandleson as US ambassador. 

Which makes me consider the question: is he the worst prime minister Britain’s ever had? You’d certainly think so if you read the right-wing press, watched TV debates, or scrolled through my Facebook feed. And let’s be clear: Keir is no Churchill, Thatcher, or Blair. He’s been a disappointment; a technocrat lacking an ideology, cool-headed but overly cautious. He hasn’t gone far enough, fast enough. But to brand him the worst ever PM is to ignore the scale of the job – and to conflate imperfect politics with outright failure. 

Starmer inherited an economy – and a society – broken by 15 years of Conservative mismanagement. Starmer’s challenge has been to steady the ship and that’s not the stuff of headline-grabbing reform. Take child poverty as an example. The last Labour government (1997-2010) reduced child poverty by around 600,000. But under the Conservatives (2010-2024) it rose by 900,000 and now around 4.5 million children are in poverty. Starmer’s Child Poverty Strategy will lift 550,000 children out of relative low income and will see the largest reduction in child poverty by any government in a single parliament. Around 7.1 million children will see their household incomes increase. This matters not just morally, but economically (evidence shows that children who grow up in poorer households earn less at age 30 than their peers) and societally (tackling child poverty will help alleviate pressure on our public services and tackle the cost of living for working people).

Further, contrast Starmer with previous administrations. David Cameron’s decision to hold a referendum on EU membership fractured his own party. Theresa May’s time in office was dominated by paralysis and U-turns. Boris Johnson’s tenure was a cavalcade of scandal, constitutional tantrums, and ethical controversies. His handling of Covid was uneven at best; his ‘oven-ready’ Brexit came out undercooked. Scandals over parties during lockdown decimated public trust in government. Liz Truss – who deserves a footnote of infamy for her short-lived premiership – delivered a reckless fiscal statement that tanked the markets. And most recently, Rishi Sunak struggled to articulate a compelling narrative for his leadership, oscillating between spending commitments and fiscal rectitude. 

Yes, Starmer’s stewardship has lacked flamboyance. On issues such as tax thresholds, public service reform, and immigration, he’s sought incrementalism rather than ideological zeal. But temperance in leadership — especially in a fractured polity — is not the same as failure. Starmer’s record shows competence, steadiness, and an understanding of the political arithmetic that governs Westminster. He lacks charisma and his handling of Mandelson’s appointment was, at best, misguided, but he’s not plunged the country into crisis, nor has he indulged in reckless policy adventurism. And I think his decision to keep Britain out of Trump’s war in Iran will prove both brave and wise. 

So, is Keir Starmer the worst prime minister in British history? Compared to recent peers, Starmer’s failures are far more modest. He is, if anything, a prime minister wrestling with inherited dysfunction rather than one who has created or amplified it. 

Read more of Matt’s columns for The Yorkshire Post…