Yvette Cooper Turns on Keir Starmer and Admits Labour “Didn’t Do Government Very Well”

Yvette Cooper has delivered an unusually candid criticism of Keir Starmer’s time as prime minister, admitting that Labour “didn’t do government very well” during the party’s first years in office. Her comments offer a rare glimpse into the internal frustrations that existed within Starmer’s government and highlight the sharp contrast she now draws between his leadership style and that of current Prime Minister Andy Burnham.

Cooper, who is now serving as health secretary, made the remarks during an interview on the Political Currency podcast with former Conservative chancellor George Osborne. Rather than simply criticising individual policies, she questioned the way Starmer and his Downing Street operation approached government itself.

Her comments are particularly significant because Cooper was not an outsider attacking the previous Labour government. She was a senior member of it, serving as home secretary and later foreign secretary under Starmer. Her criticism therefore provides an important insight into how some senior ministers experienced the previous administration.

Cooper’s central complaint was about Starmer’s leadership style. She characterised his approach as essentially telling ministers to “bring me solutions, not problems”. In her view, this may have worked effectively in some circumstances, but it was not necessarily the best way to run a political government.

According to Cooper, politics requires ministers to discuss problems openly, understand their causes and work together to find solutions. She contrasted Starmer’s more controlled style with Burnham’s approach, which she described as more collegiate and collaborative.

The difference, she suggested, is not simply a matter of personality. It can affect whether governments are able to respond effectively to difficult problems.

Under Burnham, Cooper said she had experienced a greater willingness to discuss difficulties directly. Rather than expecting ministers to arrive with fully prepared answers, Burnham wanted to hear about the problems themselves and involve colleagues in developing solutions.

For Cooper, this approach is particularly important when dealing with complicated areas such as social care.

The social-care crisis cannot easily be solved through a single policy announcement. It involves local government, the NHS, families, care workers and the wider economy. Hospitals can become overcrowded when elderly patients cannot leave because suitable social-care arrangements are unavailable.

Cooper has argued that Britain needs a national consensus around social care so that governments of different political parties cannot continually postpone the problem.

Her criticism of Starmer is also connected to a specific episode during her time as home secretary.

Cooper said that the Home Office had done much of the work behind Labour’s immigration white paper in 2025, including plans to reduce legal migration and reform the system for dealing with illegal migration. However, she said Downing Street decided that Starmer should launch the policy himself.

According to Cooper, she was effectively excluded from the announcement despite being the cabinet minister responsible for the Home Office. She recalled being told that she could sit in the front row while the prime minister presented the government’s plans.

The incident appears to have remained significant in Cooper’s assessment of the previous government.

For a senior minister, being responsible for developing a policy but then being excluded from its public launch could be frustrating. More importantly, Cooper believes it reflected a wider problem in the way Starmer’s No 10 operated.

Her argument is that government cannot function effectively if ministers and departments feel disconnected from major decisions.

The criticism is particularly striking because Starmer’s leadership was built partly around the promise of competence and discipline. Labour entered government after its landslide general-election victory promising stability, professionalism and effective administration.

Cooper’s comments suggest that, behind the public image of disciplined government, there were significant disagreements about how decisions should be made.

She did not portray Starmer as completely ineffective. Indeed, she acknowledged that his leadership style could be “very effective in other ways”. Her criticism was more specific: she argued that his approach did not always create the emotional engagement and sense of collective ownership necessary to drive political change.

That distinction matters.

A prime minister has to perform several different roles simultaneously. They must make decisions, maintain discipline, communicate with the public, manage ministers and respond to crises. A highly centralised approach can provide consistency, but it can also risk making ministers feel that they are simply implementing decisions made elsewhere.

Cooper’s comments suggest that she believes Burnham has chosen a different model.

Under Burnham, she says ministers are encouraged to engage with difficult problems collectively. This approach could potentially make government feel more politically connected to the people affected by its decisions.

The contrast is especially important given Burnham’s broader political agenda.

Since becoming prime minister, Burnham has attempted to distance his administration from the highly centralised Westminster model associated with Starmer. His creation of No 10 North in Manchester is intended to demonstrate that government can operate differently and that political power does not have to remain concentrated in London.

Cooper’s praise of Burnham’s more collaborative approach therefore fits into a wider political argument about how Labour should govern.

It also reflects a broader debate within the Labour Party about the lessons of its previous period in office.

Labour won a huge parliamentary majority in 2024, but the party subsequently struggled to maintain public enthusiasm. Difficult decisions on taxation, welfare, public services and other issues created political problems.

By the time Starmer left office, some Labour figures were questioning whether the government had communicated its objectives effectively enough.

Cooper’s statement that Labour had not “done government very well” is therefore more than an attack on one individual. It is an admission that the party itself needs to learn from its experience.

The health secretary has now placed particular emphasis on building long-term political consensus.

One example is Sure Start, the programme designed to provide support for young children and families. Cooper told Osborne that she remained angry about the previous Conservative government’s reduction in funding for Sure Start. She now wants to create a broad national consensus around early-years support so that future governments cannot easily dismantle such programmes.

Her argument is that certain areas of public policy are too important to become subject to constant political reversals.

Social care is another example.

Britain has repeatedly struggled to establish a sustainable system for funding and delivering care for older people. Governments have proposed reforms, delayed them and reconsidered them, while the pressure on the NHS has continued.

Cooper believes the political system needs to confront this problem honestly.

This is consistent with her criticism of Starmer’s “bring me solutions, not problems” approach. Complex policy problems often cannot be solved simply by asking officials to produce a set of options. Political leaders need to understand the underlying difficulties and build support for difficult decisions.

Her comments could therefore be interpreted as a defence of a more collective style of government.

However, there are risks for Cooper herself.

By criticising Starmer so openly, she could be accused of rewriting her own role in the previous government. She was not merely an observer of Labour’s performance. She was one of its most senior ministers.

If the government did not perform well, critics could reasonably ask what responsibility she herself bears.

At the same time, her position gives her criticism considerable credibility. She experienced the decision-making process from inside government and can describe problems that ordinary voters would never have seen.

Her comments also highlight the complicated transition from one Labour government to another.

Burnham’s arrival represents a clear political break with the Starmer era, but he still relies on several figures who served under the previous prime minister. Cooper is one of the most prominent examples.

Her continued presence in the cabinet suggests that Burnham does not necessarily want to discard everything associated with Starmer. Instead, he appears to be combining experienced Labour politicians with a different political and administrative philosophy.

Cooper’s role as health secretary is particularly important.

The NHS remains one of Britain’s biggest political challenges. Waiting lists, staffing shortages, social-care pressures and financial constraints cannot be resolved quickly. Any health secretary will need to work closely with other ministers and local authorities.

A more collaborative style could therefore prove useful.

Cooper’s argument is that government works better when ministers are encouraged to discuss problems rather than simply present polished solutions.

But collaboration also has limitations.

A government still needs to make decisions. Endless discussion can delay action, while too many competing voices can make it difficult to establish clear responsibility.

Starmer’s more centralised approach may have been partly designed to prevent exactly this problem. A prime minister who demands clear solutions can impose discipline and ensure that policies are implemented consistently.

The question is therefore not whether one leadership style is universally correct.

Instead, the challenge is finding the right balance between strong central leadership and genuine ministerial participation.

Cooper appears to believe that Starmer’s government leaned too far towards centralisation.

Her praise for Burnham suggests that she believes the new administration is attempting to correct that imbalance.

The political significance of her comments extends beyond the relationship between two Labour leaders.

They raise questions about what voters expect from modern government.

People often complain that politicians are too focused on political presentation and short-term headlines. They want governments to solve practical problems such as healthcare, housing, social care and living costs.

Cooper’s criticism implicitly acknowledges this frustration.

A government that constantly seeks quick political wins may struggle to address problems that require years of sustained effort.

Social care, early-years services and NHS reform all require long-term thinking. They also require political leaders to accept that some solutions may initially be unpopular.

Cooper’s emphasis on consensus could therefore be an attempt to move Labour towards a more sustainable model of policymaking.

Yet consensus itself can be difficult to achieve.

Different generations, regions and social groups have conflicting interests. A reform that benefits taxpayers may hurt public-service users. A policy that helps younger families may require additional taxes from older households. A plan to improve social care may require significant public spending.

A prime minister cannot simply ask everyone to agree.

Political leadership ultimately involves making choices.

Cooper’s criticism of Starmer is therefore best understood not as a rejection of strong leadership, but as an argument that strong leadership should involve listening to problems as well as demanding solutions.

That may be one of the most important lessons from Labour’s recent experience.

The party’s enormous electoral majority demonstrated that voters were prepared to give Labour an opportunity to govern. But electoral success does not automatically translate into effective government.

Winning an election is about persuading voters. Governing is about managing institutions, solving complex problems and maintaining public confidence over time.

Cooper now appears to believe that Labour did not make that transition successfully enough under Starmer.

Her comments provide a remarkably blunt assessment from someone who was at the heart of that government.

The political consequences remain uncertain. Starmer’s supporters may argue that Cooper is unfairly criticising a former leader after his departure, while Burnham’s allies will see her comments as confirmation that the new government represents a genuine change in political style.

For Burnham, however, the support of an experienced figure such as Cooper could be useful.

It reinforces his claim that the new government is not simply changing policies but changing the way politics is conducted.

The ultimate test will be results.

If Burnham’s more collaborative approach produces improvements in the NHS, social care, housing and regional economies, Cooper’s criticism of the previous government will appear increasingly convincing.

If the new government struggles to deliver, critics may argue that changing the tone of leadership does not necessarily solve Britain’s structural problems.

For now, Cooper’s intervention has reopened an important debate within Labour.

Her message is essentially that governments cannot succeed by demanding solutions while keeping problems at arm’s length. Ministers need to understand difficulties, work collectively and build public support for difficult reforms.

Whether that philosophy will succeed under Burnham remains to be seen.

But Cooper’s admission that Labour “didn’t do government very well” under Starmer is undoubtedly one of the clearest public assessments yet of the weaknesses of the previous Labour administration.

And by praising Burnham’s more collegiate approach, she has made it clear that she believes the party now has an opportunity to govern differently.