Should he stay or should he go? The short answer is that he has to go… but not yet, because a transformation is possible. As so often in these political crises, the final decision on the Prime Minister’s future does not rest with his media critics, his arch-enemies in politics, the dissected intricacies of a strange Whitehall conspiracy – or, indeed, the voters.
All these groups will have their time. But there are only two people who will make the final decision. One is the person who shaves Keir Starmer’s beard in the morning, brushes his teeth and drinks his coffee. Another, perhaps more important, is a Labor-supporting barrister called Victoria Starmer. She knows the almost impossible pressures of work and the pain, frustration and anger that her husband feels more and more.
Once this crisis is over, there needs to be an urgent conversation about whether we have made the job of leading Britain impossible – by loading too many problems on too weak a center – whether we are talking about the Tories, Labour, or in the future, perhaps reform politicians.
That’s for another day. For now, let’s look at the case for Starmer deciding to go. Strange as it may seem to say so now, Peter Mandelson’s vetting is a side issue. As a people we face terrible problems of lack of growth, threats from outside, lack of hope and self-confidence. Starmer did well to keep us out of the Iran war but, in the rest of the picture, his government is not working.
Subscribe to the New Statesman today and save 75%
Starmer is honorable, not a liar and in politics for the right reasons. But he is overseeing and responsible for a system that is letting Britain down.
This was supposed to be a “laser-focused” government on growth. This was what we were promised. But the Prime Minister did not intervene enough, or question Angela Rayner’s workers’ rights package enough. He did not ask how it would relate to Rachel Reeves’ national insurance increases, rapidly increasing welfare claims and the recent rise in the minimum wage.
Take them one at a time, and they’re mostly good ideas. Put it all together when the economy is already weak and they destroy employment, especially for young people. It was the No 10’s job to see the bigger picture, remember the promise of growth and intervene carefully: Starmer was too curious.
Defense is an even clearer case of failure. George Robertson and his colleagues at the Strategic Defense Review produced coherent and urgent proposals last year for a very dangerous time. Starmer’s words were consistent. Here he is more than a year ago in the Commons: “We need to change our national security posture. Because a generational challenge requires a generational response. That will require some extremely difficult and painful choices.” Repeated delays in the defense investment plan, soft talk of a ten-year strategy and a lack of new or urgent money told the world, including Moscow and Washington, something very different.
Robertson, someone I’ve known for a long time, is a loyal, largely conservative Labor veteran and he was completely distracted before deciding to speak out against his government’s “corrosive complacency” earlier this month. The treasury has blocked additional spending even at this dangerous moment and the prime minister has not been strong enough to intervene.
Again, I insist, Starmer is a decent man, but he is a counselor not an arguer, a prejudicer not a persuader. However, this is not simply a matter of judging an individual, no matter how much he is the focus of this week’s hysteria. The system itself is broken. He knows that. Whitehall is both very strong and very weak. It is strong enough to paralyze and stifle energy and innovation across the country, in the private and public sectors; and is too weak to make quick and clear decisions on difficult subjects.
People around the country, on some level, understand this perfectly well: perhaps the solution to the puzzle of why Starmer, nobody’s idea of an offensive man, is so hated, is that he represents what everyone thinks is a national failure.
Let’s look at the case for a resignation this week. The Prime Minister will be under pressure to explain why he threw a respected public servant, Olly Robbins, under the nearest bus to do exactly what was expected of him – to approve the most important diplomatic post Starmer had made. Knowing the great risks involved, Starmer had taken an extremely bold and risky decision to make Peter Mandelson the US ambassador.
The system understood. The system knew its job. The system, therefore, in the person of Robbins, seems to have ignored the vetting decision. The system realized that it was important that the prime minister was not told clearly that he was going against the advice of intelligence officers.
But are we to believe that Robbins, who knows his way around Whitehall, made no quiet communication, either in person or by telephone, with Downing Street before making this extraordinary decision?
We don’t. Maybe there isn’t a handwritten note or WhatsApp or email to discover. But I believe that communication has been made. If it goes out, either because Robbins talks or takes over, then the Prime Minister is done. If he believes it is likely to happen, then I would expect him to resign before then.
However, the political case against an early resignation is strong. It would be another internal-Westminster scandal brought before the public, just before those who could vote in Scotland, Wales and English local elections had their say. There is, beneath the surface, a large and well-organized center-left plot for a change of leader. But anyone within Labor who publicly moves against Starmer will now share the blame for the results next month, everyone expects to be terrible. As a matter of honor and to protect the future of Labour, I’m afraid the Prime Minister should stay in power and take his medicine.
Until this latest episode of the Mandelson affair, Starmer had hoped to stay on for at least another year, watching as the impact of the war in Iran eased and the economy began to recover. He could then have handed over to… (Drumroll)… Manchester’s Andy Burnham, with whom he has since rekindled his relationship. If things were still very bad in the polls, that would have allowed him a smooth, heady transition.
That was the theory. This is what the latest scandal robs him of. The deep problem here has less to do with whether he knowingly or unknowingly misled parliament (I’m in the unknowing camp) but with the much wider failings of the government since the election. What Britain needs is neither exciting political head-cutting nor continuity; but a radical difference.
This is a difficult message for those in the Cabinet, who are giving their time – say John Healey, or Wes Streeting – and for Angela Rayner. If they believe that Starmer thinks it will soon be time for “Manchesterism”, which you might define as the death of neoliberalism, then they may move to keep Burnham out. A cabinet fistfight is exactly the kind of chaos that, if you were Kemi Badenoch or Nigel Farage, you’d be hoping for the most. It did for the Tories under Johnson, Truss and Sunak. Today’s opposition, divided between conservatives, reformers and the Greens, has a vested interest in a chaotic and bloody transition; that’s one of the reasons I hope Labor MPs will keep their fire going, whatever happens this week.
Burnham herself is keeping her cards annoyingly close to her chest. But I don’t believe he would go back, through another very difficult election, unless he believed there was a core and committed group of Labor MPs in the Commons who wanted him and agreed with his policy. This would have to go beyond the obvious Manchester faithful.
This is to fight the Parliamentary Labor Party. But Britain needs a decisive break – more emphasis on democracy, a more ruthless approach to growth and, above all, a coherent political philosophy. Looking ahead to 2029, Burnham, a strong supporter of electoral reform, would be a much more likely ally of the Liberal Democrats for a centre-left anti-Reform coalition. We are facing a tough and dirty political week. But beyond that, there’s still plenty to play for.
(Further reading: Left-wing populism is here to stay)
Content from our partners
