Keir Starmer: Schrödinger’s PM

Schrödinger’s Prime Minister is running out of nine lives; ambiguity carried him into power, but it certainly will not carry him through to the next general election. 

Schrödinger’s cat is a thought experiment used to illustrate quantum superposition, where a cat is trapped inside a box with a radioactive source and a poison that will be released when the source, unpredictably, emits radiation. Quantum mechanics suggests that until the box is opened, the cat is in a superposition of both being dead and alive. Keir Starmer, it seems, has adopted the same paradox as a political strategy. For years, he has survived by being simultaneously radical and cautious, progressive and pragmatic, left and right – best described as a leader defined more by what he avoids than what he embraces. With a Reform UK government a projected near certainty,  the ‘Green surge’ under recently elected party leader, Zach Polanski, Andy Burnham gaining traction as a credible alternative,  and the polls projecting a leadership crisis as over half of Labour voters would rather see Starmer step down before the next GE, the Prime Minister cannot remain both decisive and indecisive forever: eventually the box will be opened, and the Labour Party will suffer. 

The turbulence of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership and Labour’s subsequent defeat at the 2019 general election, meant that Labour needed a figure who looked safe, competent, and unthreatening enough to swing voters, and Starmer presented as this safe vote. He spoke the language of reform to the progressive left whilst reassuring the centre he would not rock the boat. He leaned heavily on his background as a Director of Public Prosecutions, projecting authority, and seriousness, with deliberately broad campaign promises. In a political climate exhausted by chaos, this steadiness was a selling point. In 2024, his Ming vase strategy paid off as Labour swept into power with a landslide victory. 

Starmer became Prime Minister by being everything and nothing at once. His attempts to pander to the far right on immigration, coupled with policy indecision and unfulfilled pledges, are writing his own demise. Like Schrödinger’s’ cat, the Prime Minister has tried to exist in two states at once – but governing is not quantum physics. In May 2025, Starmer delivered a speech warning that Britain risked becoming an ‘island of strangers’, - if migration was not reduced. Critics immediately drew comparisons to Enoch Powell’s infamous “Rivers of Blood” speech, noting the echoes in language and tone, with Labour MPs John McDonnell and Nadia Whittome saying respectively how “shockingly divisive” the language used was, that immigrants were “being scapegoated for problems they didn’t cause.”

Whittome asked in Parliament, “Why are we trying to ape Reform, when that will do nothing to improve our constituents' lives.”

Starmer rejected the comparison to the 1968 speech, but the damage was done. Labour’s base recoiled at the language they saw as racially charged and contrary to the party’s values. Reform supporters were not swayed by the PM’s remarks, as party leader Farage posted that the PM’s admission of regret was “absolute proof that Keir Starmer has no beliefs, no principles and just reads from a script.” In fact, Reform UK supporters were always unlikely to be swayed by Labour adopting watered-down versions of their rhetoric; seeing it as opportunism rather than conviction, instead of broadening his appeal by adopting a clear, coherent and inspiring approach, Starmer managed to fracture Labour’s image while failing to win over the right.  

Even beyond immigration, Starmer has struggled to act decisively. His climate commitments have been delayed or diluted; economic reforms remain vague, and public services have seen little of the promised renewal. Portraying a government that talks a lot about change but delivers little. The campaign promises were broad enough to inspire hope, but in office, they largely remained unacted upon. Media narratives increasingly frame Starmer as reactive, uninspiring, and unable to define a clear vision – creating a picture of inadequacy. By trying to be both decisive and cautious, he ends up being neither, leaving voters disillusioned as the gap between rhetoric and reality widens. This act is unsustainable; his government is seen as weak. Without clarity, he cannot instil faith before the next election, Labour risks losing before the ballot boxes are even delivered, and Starmer risks being defined not by what he chooses but by what he avoids.  

Starmer cannot remain in this box forever; if there is any hope of a Labour government next general election, then clarity must be given. He must decide whether Labour is a party of bold progressive reform, cautious centrist pragmatism, or right-wing populism. Pandering to Reform with half-measures and poor attempts at mimicry only alienates Labour’s base and flatters the right. His promises on climate, housing, and public services cannot remain suspended. They must be compelled into action, no more evading critical issues or delivering vague promises of change.

Voters will not reward a government that governs by hesitation. Every major problem – from the NHS to economic reform and policy requires a decisive stance. Starmer must stop being left and right on policy. The rebuild of trust must come through consistency; by choosing a side and sticking to it, Labour can begin to rebuild credibility within its base and the wider electorate. Starmer will very soon be forced into definition, and if he wishes to survive this storm then he must stop acting like Schrödinger’s Prime Minister and start acting like a Prime Minister with conviction and values. Labour and Keir Starmer may think he can live forever in that box, but voters are already reaching for the lid.