The political commentariat has a fever, and the only prescription is apparently more "stability."
You’ve seen the headlines. They drip with a specific kind of patronizing dread. They claim Keir Starmer’s "shambolic" start in Downing Street is a dark cloud hanging over the upcoming elections in Cardiff and Edinburgh. They paint a picture of a Labour brand so tarnished by freebie rows and winter fuel payment cuts that the devolved nations are recoiling in horror.
It is a comfortable, lazy narrative. It is also fundamentally wrong.
The "shambles" isn't a bug in the system; for the devolved governments, it is the most valuable feature they’ve had in a decade. The idea that a polished, perfectly functioning Westminster is good for the Union is a myth sold by people who haven't spent five minutes in the Senedd or Holyrood.
The Myth of the Contagious Shambles
The logic of the "shambles" narrative relies on a simplistic idea of political gravity. It assumes that if the Prime Minister trips on the stairs of Number 10, the First Ministers in Wales and Scotland automatically break their legs.
I have spent twenty years watching these power dynamics play out from the inside. The reality is the opposite. Devolved politics thrives on Westminster friction. When London is "shambolic," it provides the perfect shield for domestic failure.
For years, the SNP and Welsh Labour used "Tory Chaos" as a universal solvent. Whatever went wrong—be it failing schools, crumbling infrastructure, or NHS wait times—could be dissolved in the vat of Westminster incompetence. The arrival of a Labour government in London was supposed to end that. The real "dread" in Edinburgh and Cardiff isn't that Starmer is messy; it’s the fear that he might eventually become competent.
If Starmer is a "shambles," the devolved leaders get to keep their favorite boogeyman. They just change the color of the tie.
Why Scotland Actually Needs a Weak Labour Party
Let’s look at the Scottish landscape. The SNP is currently a wounded animal, limping toward 2026. Their best hope isn't a surge in independence fervor—it’s a collapse in the "Change" narrative that Starmer rode to power.
The competitor's piece suggests that a weak Starmer hurts Scottish Labour’s chances. That’s an amateur take. Scottish Labour’s greatest weakness has always been the perception that they are a "branch office." A strong, disciplined, centralizing Starmer is a nightmare for Anas Sarwar because it confirms the "London orders" trope.
A "shambolic" Starmer—one who is forced to U-turn, one who looks vulnerable—actually gives the Scottish and Welsh wings of the party more room to breathe. It allows them to perform "distanced loyalty." They can criticize the PM, look "tough" for their local constituents, and claim they are the ones who will "fix" Labour from the inside.
The Winter Fuel Payment Thought Experiment
Imagine a scenario where Keir Starmer had implemented the Winter Fuel Payment cut with clinical, surgical efficiency. No leaks. No internal rebellions. Just a cold, hard policy rollout.
In that scenario, Welsh Labour and the SNP would have no move. They would be crushed under the weight of a monolithic central government. Instead, because the rollout was messy, it gave the devolved administrations a platform to perform moral superiority. They got to play the "voice of the people" against the "out-of-touch center."
The messiness didn't hurt them. The messiness saved them.
The Competency Trap
The most dangerous thing for the devolved nations is a Westminster government that actually delivers on its promises.
If Starmer manages to fix the planning system, build the houses, and stabilize the economy, the excuse for failure in the devolved regions evaporates. When the money starts flowing and the results don't follow in Glasgow or Swansea, the finger-pointing can only go one way: inward.
The "dread" isn't about the polls. The polls are a lagging indicator. The dread is about the loss of the External Enemy.
- Political Deflection: The ability to blame a "hostile" London for budget constraints.
- Cultural Differentiation: Using the "Westminster Shambles" to highlight a "more compassionate" devolved way of doing things.
- Voter Apathy: Relying on the idea that "they’re all the same" to suppress the turnout of the opposition.
Starmer’s current struggles are a gift-wrapped present for Eluned Morgan and John Swinney. It allows them to maintain the status quo while pretending to be the vanguard of stability.
Accuracy Check: The Fiscal Reality
Let’s talk about the money, because that’s where the "shambles" talk meets the brick wall of reality.
Under the Barnett Formula, the devolved budgets are tied to spending decisions in England. The noise about "freebies" and "internal rows" is irrelevant to the bottom line. What matters is the fiscal tightening. The irony is that the more "shambolic" the government looks, the more likely they are to make reactive spending decisions to buy back popularity.
For the devolved nations, a desperate, unpopular Labour government in Westminster is far more likely to open the purse strings than a disciplined, secure one. The "shambles" is actually the best leverage they have.
Stop Asking if Starmer is Hurting the Brand
The question "Is Starmer’s performance hurting Labour in the devolved nations?" is the wrong question. It assumes voters are idiots who can't tell the difference between a council house in Merthyr Tydfil and a flat in Belgravia.
The right question is: "How is the devolved leadership exploiting the Westminster vacuum?"
In Wales, we are seeing a desperate attempt to pivot away from the 20-mph speed limit debacle. In Scotland, the SNP is trying to memory-hole their own internal police investigations. Both are using the "Starmer Shambles" as a smoke screen.
The media loves a "Government in Crisis" story. It’s easy to write. It’s easy to digest. But it misses the structural utility of that crisis. Power in the UK is a zero-sum game. When the center looks weak, the peripheries look strong—even if they are doing absolutely nothing.
The Truth About the 2026 Elections
The 2026 elections won't be a referendum on Keir Starmer’s wardrobe or his choice of donors. They will be a test of whether the devolved administrations can survive without the "Evil Tory" bogeyman.
If Starmer continues to "shamble," he provides them with a "Disappointing Labour" bogeyman. It’s a lateral move. It’s safe. It’s familiar.
The real disruption will come if the "shambles" ends. If the Labour machine in Westminster becomes a high-functioning, policy-delivery juggernaut, the devolved leaders are in deep trouble. They will be forced to compete on competence rather than grievance.
For the political class in Cardiff and Edinburgh, the "shambles" isn't a disaster. It’s a lifeline.
They don't want Starmer to succeed. They want him to stay exactly as he is: just messy enough to blame, but just powerful enough to fund them.
Stop mourning the "shambles." Start watching who profits from it.
The status quo isn't being threatened by the mess in London. The status quo is being protected by it. The only thing that should truly terrify the devolved leaders is the prospect of a Westminster government that actually knows what it’s doing.
Until then, the "shambles" is the best PR they never had to pay for.
