In a follow-up to Neil Wilby Media’s article earlier this month, Lies, Broken Promises, or Slow Delivery: The Truth About Four-Tier Keir, this latest piece examines a new dimension of Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s leadership: his rhetoric: Whilst the earlier article dissected Starmer’s record of policy reversals and unfulfilled pledges, this analysis focuses on his repeated use of the phrase “my government” and its implications for public trust, institutional respect, and the broader political landscape.
The Lies article (read in full here) highlighted Starmer’s failure to deliver on a wide range of key commitments, from pension support for WASPI women to environmental targets. These broken promises have contributed to a record-low government approval rating of 27% (YouGov, April 2025). Against this backdrop, Starmer’s rhetorical choices have come under scrutiny, with critics questioning whether his language reflects a deeper disconnect from the traditions and values of British governance.
Traditionally, British political discourse refers to the ruling administration as “His Majesty’s Government,” a convention underscoring the constitutional balance between the Crown and Parliament. Starmer’s insistence on “my government” marks a stark departure, raising concerns about respect for the monarchy and the collaborative ethos of governance.
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch has called this shift ‘arrogant’, tweeting that it wrongly suggests government, not businesses, drives growth. Similarly, Daily Mail’s Quentin Letts noted on X that “‘my government’ is a phrase for the Monarch,” highlighting Starmer’s break from tradition.
Critics argue this linguistic pivot reflects an over-personalisation of power, positioning Starmer as the sole proprietor of governmental authority. Whilst the phrase may aim to convey accountability, it risks alienating those who value the collective nature of British institutions. The Cabinet, meant to function as a cohesive unit, appears overshadowed by a leadership style prioritising individual control over collaboration.
Starmer’s government continues to struggle with public trust, maintaining a YouGov approval rating of just 27% in April 2025, unchanged from March. Compounding this, a Redfield & Wilton poll in February 2025 found a majority of Britons view the government as incompetent, further eroding confidence in Starmer’s leadership.
For many voters, “my government” has become emblematic of a broader disconnect—a government perceived as aloof from tradition and collective accountability.
British constitutional tradition rests on the interplay between the Crown and the people through a balanced apparatus of ministries and elected representatives. Starmer’s rhetorical shift risks undermining this balance, with critics contending that his language diminishes the monarchy’s symbolic role and the collective nature of state power. By framing the government as his own, Starmer risks alienating both his Cabinet and the electorate, further eroding trust in his administration.
The language of governance is never incidental. Starmer’s use of “my government” places the onus for every decision squarely on his shoulders, equating government failure with personal failure. While this could foster direct accountability, it risks fostering a personality-driven politics that leaves little room for collective responsibility. For those who prioritise transparency, this raises questions: Is this language a deliberate bid for control, or a reaction to mounting pressure from policy failures? Either way, the implications for trust are profound.
Starmer’s wooden leadership style is resonating poorly with voters, as evidenced by persistent low approval ratings. As his government grapples with broken promises and inconsistent policies, the choice of language becomes another battleground. A government that distances itself from “His Majesty’s Government” risks signalling a willingness to remake the rules of the political game, with far-reaching implications for British democracy.
Labour’s prospects in the upcoming local elections appear increasingly precarious, with voter discontent widening. In a landscape where political identity is intertwined with the language leaders use, even a subtle semantic shift can signal a deeper ideological drift.
This follow-up to Lies, Broken Promises… examines how language shapes perceptions of political power. Starmer’s use of “my government” is emblematic of a leadership style that, while perhaps intended to demonstrate accountability, risks alienating those who value traditional governance and institutional integrity. With approval ratings languishing, this personalised control unsettles many in Britain.
As the nation braces for another cycle of local elections, the political future of Labour—and British democracy itself—may hinge on whether governance is defined by collective responsibility or the ambitions of a singular leader. The coming months will reveal whether Starmer can steer his government back to a course that resonates with Britain’s rich political heritage, or if “my government” will remain a symbol of a troubled era.
Neil Wilby adds: “As a journalist, I believe that if the present government were moderately successful, cohesive, or modestly popular, the Prime Minister’s repeated use of ‘my government’ would be a non-issue. Yet, with public approval at a catastrophic 16%, it jars with senior figures like Kemi Badenoch and respected mainstream media pundits, amplifying perceptions of leadership failure.”
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page last updated: Thursday 17th April, 2025 at 08h45
Corrections: Please let me know if there is a mistake in this article. I will endeavour to correct it as soon as possible.
Right of reply: If you are mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let me have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory it will be added to the article.
Photo Credits: YouTube
© Neil Wilby 2015-2025. Unauthorised use, or reproduction, of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from, and links to, the article (or blog) may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
Neil Wilby Media 
Leave a comment