There have been many moments, since the first disastrous election results began to filter through, when the prime minister’s future has hung in the balance. It still does, but a combination of sheer defiance and the epic ineptitude of his many rivals seemingly left him safe for the time being. Then the “herd” began to move. Calls to go, junior ministerial aides quitting, the rumble of rebellion is growing. It has been a turbulent few days, and even a cabinet meeting might not quell it. Indeed, it may mark a crescendo. Only the British Labour Party could so mismanage its affairs to ensure its King’s Speech might coincide with the resignation of the premier. But, up to now, it appears that Sir Keir Starmer has played a weak hand with some skill.
The “make or break” speech delivered by the prime minister, in a curiously small room with none of his cabinet colleagues present, turned out to be neither. It was certainly candid and bold enough to pacify some of his critics; but still short of ending the Labour psychodrama for good. Indeed, the leadership crisis seems to be deepening.
He “acknowledged” that the British people had grown “tired of a status quo that has failed them”, and said “change cannot come quickly enough”. Truth be told, he added, “I’m not sure that they believe that we care”. He argued, less convincingly, that “I am their prime minister, and this is their government. Because I know whose side I am on.”
So he offered, as a token of that appreciation of left-behind communities, the re-nationalisation of a significant part of the British steel industry. For those who yearn for him to come out as a full-throated European he promised a “big step forward” at the next EU-UK summit – and in the meantime a “Youth European Experience”.
In a curious echo of John Major, who had a similarly troubled premiership but survived against the odds, he said he wanted Britain to be “at the heart of Europe”, a tantalising hint of a much more ambitious embrace of the European dream. Most immediately, he was unequivocal that he was not going to oblige his critics either by quitting now (which would help some of them) or setting a timetable for an orderly departure in September. More than 40 MPs have called on him to quit. We will see who prevails.
Strange to say, one of the most perilous development for the PM in recent days was when one of his less prominent backbenchers, Catherine West, emerged as a “stalking horse”, capable, it was supposed, of setting off an imminent stampede of bigger political beasts looking to devour the current leader of the party. Now her clumsy intervention looks to have been a priceless gift for Sir Keir, inadvertently dividing the other contenders and demonstrating their division and weakness rather than the reverse. Probably not what she had in mind. It may have, but probably not in the way she intended.
For one of the more prominent figures in this saga, Andy Burnham, the challenge and the MPs’ rebellion came far too soon.
For those on the Labour right, such as Wes Streeting, it would plainly be advantageous if the deed were done quickly, though his prospects of winning over an overwhelmingly soft left membership are poor, and he has been consistently reluctant to initiate a contest. The same goes for Shabana Mahmood and Darren Jones, two impressive social democrats, but equally unpopular with the grassroots. Angela Rayner, for all her genuine strengths, remains in dispute with HM Revenue and Customs. If she ever became leader, she would be forever lumbered by the opposition and the right-wing media to the point of destruction with the tag of “tax dodger”, justified or not.
Ed Miliband seems to be the less problematic default choice for the soft left, but he isn’t obviously any more of an attractive offer to the wider electorate than when he was the alternative to David Cameron in 2015. He a technocrat with too much “baggage”, and is not what they call in this brutal trade a “retail politician”. Heavy is the Ed Stone around his neck.
In fact, these are all more or less exactly the same considerations that faced the Labour Party as it suffered during its last leadership crisis going into its conference last Autumn. Then, Mr Burnham’s unofficial leadership bid foundered, mainly because he wasn’t an MP. It is the same now: there is no such thing as a safe Labour seat for him to be parachuted into to make him eligible for the fight. Sir Keir’s rivals were all compromised in one way or another, and never willing to make the first move, let alone to co-ordinate their attacks. It is absurd to think a serious party of government would have its King’s Speech and a leadership election simultaneously.
For all their frustration with Sir Keir and their own more or less honourable ambitions, the PM’s rivals lack a convincing alternative “manifesto”. To the extent there is any such plan, it would terrify the bond markets, Truss-style. None are so astonishingly charismatic that they’d transform Labour’s poll ratings. And they keep bungling their plots.
It might be better if they could somehow conspire to work together and for Mr Burnham to join Sir Keir in a genuine show of unity with an influential role in cabinet, renouncing leadership ambitions. Perhaps, in saying that Mr Burnham standing for the Commons is a matter for the NEC, Sir Keir is indicating a softening in his attitude; he was certainly extremely warm in his praise for the mayor of Greater Manchester. A wider, stronger cabinet would be a reasonably encouraging outcome for the future of the party and the country.
Faute de mieux, Sir Keir has survived so far. He has defied what he terms, politely, his “doubters” but his political enemies, only need to be lucky, or get their act together, once. Whether Sir Keir hangs on, goes now, or goes later it will settle little, and the psychodrama will surely continue.
