Why did Keir Starmer use the ‘S’ word 13 times in one speech?

Labour politicians used to agonise over whether to use what they called the “S” word and brand themselves a socialist party. Today Keir Starmer’s party has a new “S” word – security – and it could be a huge asset at the general election.

Starmer mentioned it 13 times in a recent speech.

Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, labels her vision “securonomics” in an “age of insecurity”. It was no coincidence she unveiled it in Washington, as it aligns Labour with Bidenomics and other centre-left parties in Germany and Australia trying to make their countries more economically secure and resilient.

It means “friendshoring” (sourcing components and products from geopolitical allies to reduce dependency on China); industrial policy and putting resilience above efficiency. Reeves argued: “It is time for us to admit that globalisation, as we once knew it, is dead … We must foster new partnerships, between the free market and an active state and between countries across the world who share values and interests.”

Security offers Labour a new song for swing voters sceptical about the party’s old tunes on equality and redistribution. Starmer allies in the Labour Together group, whose former director Morgan McSweeney now heads Labour’s election campaign, talk of a new “politics of security” based on strong finances, safe streets and a secure nation that can bind together a wide coalition of voters. Labour’s reform of planning laws to allow more housebuilding will enable more people to enjoy the “security of home ownership.”

The insecurity of many voters comes through strongly in Labour’s focus groups and polling, not least in key marginal seats. One Starmer ally told me: “The focus on security is a result of us facing outwards to the real world rather than looking inwards to what pleases the party.”

A new study by Labour Together, which found the party has a bigger lead over the Tories among women (28 points) than men (22 points), said: “Women are nearly a third more likely than men to be very worried about the financial security of their household. This drives people towards Labour, as those who feel ‘very worried’ about their finances are nearly six times more likely to vote Labour than Conservative.” It warns the support of women is “contingent on Labour continuing to put forward a more convincing offer than the Conservatives on these issues”.

But is security just another warm word? After all, no one is against it. Some Labour insiders think securonomics has its limits. As one put it: “We need policies, not words. A wish list is not a strategy, let alone a plan. Are we the US? We don’t have their manufacturing base, the size of their market, their lower dependence on trade, or their dollar.”

Security is not a new concept. In fact, it’s a very old one. The state pension was introduced in 1909 and a comprehensive system of social security, recommended by William Beveridge in 1942, was launched six years later by the post-war Labour government.

The Conservatives have traditionally regarded security as their natural territory – albeit with a narrower definition based on defence and law and order. Some Tories take comfort from polling which suggests security issues could help Sunak recreate the party’s winning coalition in 2019.

Like Starmer, Rishi Sunak often uses the “S” word at Prime Minister’s Questions. Security shot up the agenda after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine amid war in Europe and an energy price shock which persuaded Sunak to create a Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.

So, the Tories will not surrender ownership of the “S” word without a fight. Some saw the new buzzword coming. When Onward, the centre-right think tank, was led by Will Tanner, now deputy chief of staff at Downing Street, it predicted “a sea change in British politics, with voters overwhelmingly looking for a society that gives them more security, not more freedom. This marks a break with 60 years of liberal consensus.”

The Tories regard Labour’s pledge of security in a precarious jobs market through a package of workers’ rights as evidence Starmer supports a “big state, interventionist approach” that would dictate to business. Sunak’s party will attack Labour’s eventual £28bn-a-year programme to deliver energy and environmental security through green investment as a borrowing binge the nation cannot afford.

Yet the Tories should choose their targets carefully. Labour’s decision to adopt security as an overarching theme will have a strong appeal at an election taking place after 14 years of Tory rule in which economic insecurity has grown.