Starmer’s pragmatic approach to government is proving to be what’s best for the country

Almost three months into his administration, Sir Keir Starmer’s self-styled “British pragmatism” has made a refreshing – indeed invigorating – change from the ideological obsession and grinding search for new culture wars that disfigured politics under the Conservatives.

Such controversies as there have been – notably about the cuts to the winter fuel allowance and policy in the Middle East – have been fact-based and verging on the empirical. The same is true about his efforts to build a personal rapport with Donald Trump, and the apparent willingness to rethink taxing the super-rich non-doms, given reports that the Treasury fears little if any new revenue may be raised by attacking these extremely mobile people.

There is nothing to be gained from taxation that yields no return, and there is even less to be said for failing to get on terms with a man who has a roughly even chance of being the president of the United States of America in about six weeks. The prime minister, in both cases, is placing country firmly before party, even if it means dining on some of his own words as well as Mr Trump’s no doubt excellent banquet.

It is early days still, but some of the contours of the Starmer administration can already be discerned. In personal style, there is the toughness and the frankness that the public deserve – no more mindless boosterism and crackpot cakeism.

The “changed Labour Party”, as Sir Keir likes to term it, is one where the creation of wealth is as important as its redistribution, if not more – and where the world and its often unpleasant personalities must be dealt with as they are, and not as one might wish them to be.

It is a party, once again, concerned with balancing economic efficiency and social justice with clear results on the statute book and readily perceived in people’s lives. For most of the Labour Party’s relatively short periods of electoral and governmental success, these are the ideas that have guided them, rather than Marxist shibboleths and futile gestures.

As used to be one of the mantras of New Labour during the Tony Blair era, the approach to policy across the new government seems to be “what matters is what works”, within the context of a market economy and traditional social democratic values. If there ever has been any doubt that Sir Keir would, upon election, be transformed, werewolf style, into some recrudescence of Jeremy Corbyn, his early time in office has decisively proved the contrary.

Indeed, if it can be put this way, the prime minister is evolving into something of an extreme pragmatist. That may disappoint some in his party, but so far as the country is concerned, and for the sake of Labour’s long-term electoral prospects, that is no bad thing.

At a time when the Conservatives seem ready to set off on another ill-starred trek to the far right, a determinedly centrist stance is Sir Keir’s surest route to a second term and the “decade of renewal” for which he seeks a mandate. So, far from betrayal, he is setting about delivering the “change” he has so often promised.

It is seen most vividly in foreign policy. “British pragmatism” is a phrase that was coined when the prime minister was preparing for his meeting with his Italian counterpart, Georgia Meloni.

A favourite of Rishi Sunak, Ms Meloni leads a party that can trace its history to the Mussolini era, and she heads a hard-right coalition government. No matter. Italy is a useful ally within the EU, is supportive of Nato and Ukraine, and can, perhaps, have some lessons to share about dealing with irregular migration.

The same goes for the approach to Mr Trump. Just as Sir Tony once had to pivot from his ideological “Third Way” soulmate, Bill Clinton, to the neoliberal George W Bush, so now must Sir Keir maintain warm relations with the Biden-Harris White House while developing some kind of common ground with former (and possibly future) president Trump. As someone who has made even less kind remarks about Mr Trump, David Lammy, the foreign secretary, faces a still more demanding charm offensive.

Similarly, Sir Keir has recognised that Brexit is not going to be reversed during this parliament – but also detected a wish among the British people to “reset” relations with our closest allies and largest trading partner, nations with whom we share so much.

How far he gets in his negotiations remains to be seen, but he hasn’t promised (or, to some, threatened) too much departure from the flawed deal that Boris Johnson so hurriedly concluded in 2020. In Europe, more than in most areas of policy, the management of expectations is key – not least because it will also be up to the European Commission to agree terms.

Sir Keir will shortly travel to Brussels to scope a new, closer relationship with Ursula von der Leyen, EU Commission president. It will naturally build on what seem to be blossoming friendships with Emmanuel Macron and Olaf Scholz, as well as Ms Meloni. The antagonism of the Johnson-Truss years, partly repaired by Mr Sunak, is decisively over.

Nor will Britain be well served by pushing the non-doms out of the country. Ideally, they would pay their dues and stay in the country, but these are people with all the money and expertise to please themselves, and there is no God-given reason why they have to stay in the UK.

Successive chancellors since Alistair Darling in the last Labour government have tightened what was an anomalous, unfair and ridiculously generous fiscal regime for the average billionaire. However, as Jeremy Hunt has indicated, the effort to make them contribute more is becoming subject to a much more formidable piece of legislation than any UK finance act – the law of diminishing returns.

Some thin compromise may be found that will permit the chancellor, Rachel Reeves and the prime minister to declare that their relevant manifesto commitments have been met – but the proceeds look to be less lucrative than assumed. But that is surely preferable to losing entirely the contribution to the economy that the billionaires make.

We would certainly be a more equal society, and parts of the London property market wouldn’t be as overheated, but the money to cut NHS waiting lists would need to be found elsewhere.

Pragmatism, again, was the best guide to policy in opposition – and, for all the presentational missteps, is proving the best way to govern.