Keir Starmer tells BBC he'll still be UK prime minister in 2027 | BBC News

Welcome to 2026 and welcome to Downing Street. We've been here this morning to speak to the Prime Minister ahead of what is going to be a really mega political year. There's so much going on. Can he and the government get the economy going when it's been stuck in the slow lane for so long? Could there be peace in Ukraine? And what's Donald Trump really up to? But for the Prime Minister, there's one massive question hanging over it all. There's lots of people in his own party who think he might not make it to 2027. And there are a huge set of elections in

May that will give a big judgment on him and his leadership. An exclusive and extended interview with Keir Starmer. Prime Minister, 2026 could transform or perhaps even terminate your leadership.

So I wonder what's your New Year's resolution? Well, I'm looking forward to 2026. I think it's going to be the year when we turn a corner as a country. A lot of the decisions we took in 2025 will come into force effectively in 2026. And I think that for many people who've waited 16, 17 long years for their living standards to improve, for their public services to improve, they need now to feel the change. And that's what 2026 is going to be about. We've talked about renewing the country,

that will become a reality. And each month there will be actions delivered, which will make a material change to people across the country. So this is very much turning the corner, whether that's on the economy, on education, on defence and security. It's a year to look forward to. It's a year that I'm optimistic about. And I think it will reflect the hard work that we've put in already to turn the country

around. You seem very cheerful. And some people might be almost surprised that you're optimistic because you've had a very torrid time. I mean, I thought your resolution might be that you're still

sitting in that seat by 2027. Well, I will be sitting in this seat by 2027. And if this long form interview works, we can try it again in January of next year as well. In September, we had a bit of a

similar conversation. You said, look, I just need the space to do the job. Give me time. You'll show people. And since then, actually, your ratings have got worse. More of your plans had to be ditched by your political decision making. Even at the Royal Variety performance, someone impersonating you was booed. Now, by many measures, you are historically unpopular, even more unpopular than Liz Truss.

Do you acknowledge that at the beginning of this year?

Look, I'm not surprised that people are frustrated. I completely get that. The truth is, since the crash in 2008, most people haven't seen their living standards improved. They haven't seen their public services move in the right direction. They've seen them move in the wrong direction. And they've lost trust in politics. So when we went to the electorate in 2024, saying our manifesto pledge is change,

many people said, yes, I want that change. I'm fed up. But then what happened is that people wanted the change to come more quickly. I actually really understand that. Because if, for example, you were 30, let's say, by way of example, in 2008, when the 08 crash, you've waited, you're now 47. And you will feel, well, a good chunk of my life has gone without things getting better. If you were perhaps 50, you would be near retirement now. You'd say, I want things to happen more quickly. So I actually

do understand the frustration. My job, I was given a five-year mandate to change this country around.

And I said we'd do it in a serious way, with long-term measures that would actually benefit the country. Not slogans, not easy answers, not all the things that failed so miserably over the last 14 years of the last government, but to do it differently. And that's what we're doing.

But isn't it also the case that there have been an awful lot of unforced errors in your government?

This is not just about people's impatience, which you say you understand. I mean, even just in the last few days, I wonder, are you sorry that you wrote you were delighted that a British Egyptian activist, Alaa Abdel Fattah, was back in the UK when he'd previously said killing any colonialists, especially Zionists, was heroic? He also said there was no genocide against the Jews by the Nazis. Are you sorry you welcomed him back to the UK?

Those comments are abhorrent. And I condemn them utterly. So let's be really clear about that.

As I've made clear, I didn't know about those comments at the time of welcoming Alaa Abdel Fattah to this country. But what I would say, just stepping back from it, Laura, is, as you know, with consular cases, one of the jobs of the British government, all British governments, not just this British government, where someone is being treated in an improper way in another country, if they're a British national, is to take action to try to alleviate that situation.

And that's why I acted in this case. And actually, previous prime ministers acted in exactly the same way in the actions they took to try to get him released. Because that's what happens in consular cases.

But it's almost impossible to understand that no one in the government had bothered to check what he'd said before, and then that the prime minister of this country says he's delighted to welcome somebody back who'd expressed those views. Are you sorry you did?

Well, of course I regret that. And your point that somebody in government should have known is one I've made myself to the appropriate team, because I do think I should have been made aware, and I wasn't made aware. And that is a failing within the system, which is why we're carrying out a review. But to meet your challenge, yes, it's a failing within the system. It shouldn't have happened.

And I wasn't very pleased about it when I found out. Hence, we're taking remedial action.

Let's then talk about the economy in a bit more detail. You've already referenced it.

Now, you promised that you would use the power that you have in this building to get the economy growing. But on one of the most fundamental measures of that, it's becoming harder for people to get a job. Unemployment is going up. And many people in the business community say that's because you made a basic mistake at the beginning, because you made it more expensive to give someone a job. And rising unemployment is the consequence. They're right, aren't they?

The number of people in employment has gone up. The number of people who are inactive and now looking for work has gone up. That's a good thing. But we obviously need to meet the challenge of unemployment, and we will meet that challenge of unemployment. I'm particularly concerned about young people who are unemployed. And that's why we put in place a number of measures to ameliorate that situation. But I've long believed that on the economy, the most important thing was to stabilise, to make sure that we've got growth in the system,

which we hadn't had before. And that's why I'm really pleased the IMF, which looks across the board at different countries, is likely to predict that 2025, we were the second highest growth in the G7. We're creating the conditions for further growth. And for me, that's the most important thing for the economy.

But just at the very end of 2025, the £31 billion deal that you had hailed with Donald Trump signing at Chequers, that was put on ice. And a lot of businesses, frankly, we hear from them all the time, are really hacked off with one of the things that you've done.

And I just wonder why you think it is that the economy has not grown in the way that you hoped it would. Because your critics can give a long list. They can say jacking up taxes.

They can say more regulation, making it more expensive to hire people. Why do you think it's been more sluggish than you hoped? Because we both know that's true.

Yeah. Well, let me first push back on the America deal, because there are key components to that deal, which are in place and safeguarding jobs right now. So we got the best deal in relation to tariffs on car exports to the US. It's hugely important. And around the world, I think you would acknowledge, most other countries say, that they wish they'd been able to get the deal that we got.

There are a lot of people in your party, even some people in your own cabinet, who quite openly suggest that actually you should do something much more radical to help the economy, is that you should go pursue a customs union with the EU. And you've ruled that out many times. Do you still rule it out? Because it feels like your government's been warming up to that idea a bit.

Well, I've always been clear that we need a closer relationship with the EU. That is in our national interest. And we've taken important steps towards that, with the EU-UK reset, and it is a reset. Relations between the UK and the EU are in the best position they've been for 10 years. And that has meant we've already taken steps.

But what's next?

We've already taken steps on food and agriculture to align with the single market. That's the sovereign decision that we have taken. I think we should get closer. And if it's in our national interest, in our interest, to have even closer alignment with the single market, then we should consider that. We should go that far. We're already aligning on energy, reconnecting to energy in Europe, on emissions. But I think the single market, further alignment, as I

say, if it's in our interest to do so, we should take that step.

So what do you mean by that? So countries like Switzerland and Norway have access to the single market, which is one of the biggest economic trading zones in the world.

A very important one.

But leaving the single market was one of the cornerstones of leaving the EU. So what exactly do you mean by being closer to the single market? Because anyone else who has access has to follow their rules. And they also have to allow freedom of movement, where an unlimited number of EU citizens could come once again and live in this country. So what exactly do you mean?

So what I mean by that is, if you look at the deal we've already done with the EU on food and agriculture, we're aligning our rules so that we can access the single market. So that's a sovereign decision that we've made as a government, that it's in our interest to do so. What I'm saying is there are other areas where we should consider whether it's in our interest to do the same and align with the single market. Now that needs to be considered on a sort of issue by issue, sector by sector basis. But we've already done it with food and agriculture. And that will be

implemented this year. That will be another turning the corner moment as we get closer.

What I would say about the customs union is that I argued for a customs union for many years with the EU. But a lot of water has now gone under the bridge. I do understand why people are saying wouldn't it be better to go to the customs union. I actually think that now we've done deals with the

US which are in our national interest. Now we've done deals with India which are in our national interest. We are better looking to the single market rather than the customs union for our further alignment. And it wouldn't be in our interest now to give up. Would you be willing to revisit freedom

of movement allowing EU citizens with no limit to come to the UK again? No. But we are looking

at a youth mobility scheme which will be for young people to travel, to work, to enjoy themselves in different European countries to have that experience. Both our young people going to Europe, Europeans coming here. We've committed to that in principle. That is a good thing. I do think young people should have that opportunity. The question now will be what are the numbers, what are the ages, what's the duration of the scheme. And it's going to cost 570 million pounds? Well no, we're in the negotiations

with the EU at the moment as to what that looks like. But have we committed in principle to young people having a limited period of time when they can travel and work and experience other European countries? Yes we have. I think that's a good thing. That is not the return to freedom of movement.

We are not going back to freedom of movement. But I personally think that young people having

that opportunity is a very good thing. For your leadership to, you know, get yourself together, get yourself out of the doldrums in the polls, which have been very serious over the last 18 months, you need people to have faith in you, don't you? Yes, of course. And you promised people that you would smash the gangs. Now, the numbers of small boat crossings actually has started going up again.

The number of people being housed in asylum hotels, which you've condemned as a terrible idea for everybody concerned, for those asylum seekers and the communities involved, the numbers have been going up again. You're not remotely succeeding in your mission to smash the gangs, are you? I mean, even you say asylum hotels where your promise is to end them by the, close them by the end of the

parliament. That's 2029. It's another three years. Well, on asylum hotels, at their height there were 400 hotels and now there are about 197. Now, some of that was before we came into power. I acknowledge that. But I think it is important with the hotels to just remind ourselves what the sole cause of the hotels was. The last government didn't process asylum claims. This was an absurd policy. I'm really pleased we've removed 50,000 since we've been in office. These numbers are record numbers for the best

part of a decade. And I'm really pleased about that. But there's no alternative. I have said, I want to end asylum hotels by the end of this parliament. Well, that's what our manifesto commitment was. Which is another three years.

No, I know. And therefore, I've said to the system, to the relevant departments, I want to see that brought forward. I want to shorten that. Well, as soon as possible, but no longer the end of parliament. Bring it forward. I want us to close hotels. I think over coming months, you'll see evidence of that. Because the frustration of taxpayers, that because of a mess left by the last government, we've got tens of thousands of people who are in limbo. The taxpayers paying for their accommodation because the last government wouldn't process their

claims. Not good enough. But that's interesting. And we need to, I think, advance on the closure of asylum hotels. This year? Where it was, well, I don't want to set a date, Laura, until we're absolutely sure that we can meet that date. What I do want to say is, I'm determined we'll close them.

And I have pushed the departments to say, I want to see that timeline brought forward. I want to see this happening more quickly. And as we turn a corner into 2026, you'll see evidence of that.

And I want to talk about what's happening around the rest of the world. And you know, immigration is one facet of that. You need to have relationships with other countries to deal with it.

But I know just before we sat down today, you spoke to President Zelensky this morning.

And over the Christmas period, he said there was a 90% chance of a peace deal. Do you feel like 2026 could be the year for peace in Ukraine? Is that what people could start to believe?

I certainly hope so. And obviously, this starts with the caveat that none of this is certain.

There's no straight road to what we all want to see, which is a just and lasting peace.

I did speak to President Zelensky just an hour or so ago. I think that he's right in saying we're 90% of the way there. So that is a good thing. I think that we're probably closer now than we've been for months, if not since the beginning of this conflict. As I say, there's always a caveat with me because we can't be certain. The sticking points are one, the security guarantees, because what is really important to Ukraine, to Europe and to the UK is that any deal,

if it's reached, sticks and is lasting. And do you believe that America, alongside European allies like the UK, will stand ready to give a security guarantee for 15 years, 20 years,

even President Zelensky said he wants 50 years? I think that we're much further advanced on that issue than we were ever before. So serious progress on the American and on the coalition are willing.

To a point now where one of the discussions we'll have on Tuesday is, how do we integrate what the Americans are putting on the table with what the coalition of willing countries have already put

them on the table? So joint forces, American forces and European forces? How do we integrate that?

We've had military planning. We've got military plans in place. So the question we're now on is, how do we integrate those security guarantees? That's a long way further forward than we were when we set up the coalition of willing. The other sticking point, of course, is territory, and Donetsk in particular. And I'm really, really clear that issues of territory have to be for Ukraine, without being over optimistic, because these things can move around. I do, I mean, 2026

seems to me the year in which we could make significant progress towards peace in Ukraine.

And what a difference that will make to the United Kingdom, because people often say to me, well, you're spending a lot of time on Ukraine. What about the issues back at home? They're directly linked.

So to take energy costs, they doubled at the beginning of this conflict back in this country.

They're still 40 percent higher as a result of the conflict. So every month through the letterbox, people are paying more because of the conflict. So it's in our interests to find a lasting, peaceful

solution to this conflict. And you've certainly devoted a lot of time to that. And you've been incredibly clear always that Vladimir Putin's attack on a sovereign country of Ukraine was wrong, not to be condemned. What about President Trump's attack on a sovereign country of Venezuela? The White House has said that they captured Maduro and they struck his country. So there's a lot we don't know. But we do know that. So will you condemn that action against the sovereign state? Well, I want to

get all the material facts together. And we simply haven't got the full picture at the moment. It's fast moving. And we need to piece that together. I can be really clear with you that there was no UK involvement in this operation. And obviously, we're working in relation to British citizens and nationals who are there with our embassy. But we need to establish full picture. I then need to speak to President Trump. I need to speak to our allies. But I don't shy away from this. I've been a lifelong advocate of

international law and the importance of compliance with international law. But I want to ensure that I've got all the facts at my disposal. And we haven't got that at the moment. And we need to get that before we come to a decision about the consequences in relation to the actions that have been taken.

But we do know enough here that the US, by its own admission, has struck a sovereign state. They have captured the leader of a sovereign state. Other political leaders in this country have already condemned it. Even Nigel Farage, who I know you have a very dim view of, has said it's probably against

international law. So can you say that? Well, I want to, with the government, we take this very seriously. I want to establish all the facts. That's what we're doing, working within our own teams, working with our US counterparts. And of course, I want to discuss this with allies. So I'm simply saying, my preferred course of action is to make sure I've got all the facts at my disposal in relation to this. And it's fast moving. We clearly haven't got those facts at our disposal at

the moment. And I want to be in that position. But I know that you worry about global turmoil in all sorts of different ways. By doing this kind of thing and having been accused by lots of people of multiple abuses of power, isn't your friend, Donald Trump, contributing to that global turmoil?

Well, two responses to that. Firstly, I do think that we're in a more volatile world than we have been for many, many years. And I'm really struck by the fact that what is happening internationally has much more of a direct impact on the UK than at any time that most of us can remember. And there are various reasons for that. There are conflicts around the world. There's climate issues going on. They're all impacting back on the UK. And that's why whenever I'm abroad on international work, I'm thinking about

what's the impact back on the UK. But the question here, isn't your big political friend making it worse? Yeah. The relationship between the US and the UK is one of the closest relationships in the world. It is vitally important for our defence, for our security, for our intelligence. It is my responsibility to make sure that relationship works, as the Prime Minister of this country, working with the President of the United States. And not only have I stepped up to that responsibility, I have

made it my business and I do get on with President Trump. Are there any circumstances under which, if there was a leadership challenge to you after May, that you would walk away? Or would you fight it

under any circumstances? Well, Laura, under the last government, we saw constant chopping and changing of leadership, of teams. It caused utter chaos, utter chaos. And it's amongst the reasons that the Tories were booted out so effectively at the last election. Nobody but nobody wants to go back to that. It's not in our national interest. We know from that evidence what happens if you go down that chaotic path.

There have also been many, many criticisms of you and you're chopping and changing and ditching policies and you turning on things and having all sorts of different strategies that never quite seem to stick. And it's been fascinating listening to you at length today. You seem pretty calm, you seem pretty confident. Maybe to some people's ears you might sound a bit complacent.

No. Do you know how much political trouble you've really been in?

Well, almost every week somebody writes that this is the worst week in politics. You can't have 52 worst weeks in politics. You don't win the general election on Twitter. And so there is an element in which you do have to just rise above that and remind yourself, what's the change we've actually brought about? How's that made a material difference to people's lives? I'm really proud of that. I'm really taking children out of poverty. I'm getting that record investment in, championing apprenticeships

so young people can have the chance. We don't just walk past them. I'm proud of all that change. That's what I came into politics to do. I had nine years in opposition, the most frustrating nine years of my life. And I wouldn't swap a single day of being in power for a decade of being in opposition.

Prime Minister, thank you for being so generous with your time. It's been great to be able to talk at a longer length than usual. Thank you very much indeed for speaking to us today.