Starmer's Squandered Victory: A Government Adrift
Keir Starmer's historic election victory in 2024 has rapidly transformed into what many Labour MPs describe as a tragedy nearing its finale. The very tactics that secured Labour's enormous parliamentary majority have proven completely inadequate for the challenges of actual governance, leaving the prime minister appearing increasingly directionless and detached from his own party.
The Edgar's Law Principle: Measuring Political Misfortune
The mood among Labour parliamentarians follows what political observers call Edgar's law, drawn from Shakespeare's King Lear. This principle suggests that any current misfortune must be measured against potential future disasters. As one MP explained, there's no opinion poll so dismal that a worse one couldn't follow, no fiscal forecast so bleak that the Treasury couldn't make it more confusing with contradictory tax signals, and no policy so objectionable to Labour values that it couldn't be made more cruel.
This context explains why this week's announcement of stringent refugee measures, modelled on Denmark's notoriously restrictive system, generated only limited backbench rebellion rather than the expected conflagration. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood had carefully prepared the ground, explaining the political necessity to colleagues in private meetings beforehand. The proposals landed on what insiders describe as a rolled pitch - carefully prepared to minimize immediate backlash.
A Leadership Vacuum at the Heart of Government
The most common complaint circulating Westminster is that Keir Starmer barely appears to be running the government at all. Instead, he has delegated political judgment to his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney. This isn't to suggest the prime minister lacks executive energy, but rather that he shows little interest in mediating departmental disputes or engaging in lengthy policy debates.
Starmer's unusual political journey - entering Parliament at 52 after a distinguished legal career - means he lacks instinctive feel for Labour's historical traditions and cultural references. Colleagues describe him as allergic to abstract discussion, seeing it as an impediment to action. Even cabinet members confess that Starmer's innermost beliefs remain a complete mystery, with one senior figure noting: Keir is highly unusual as a prime minister in giving the impression that whatever he personally thinks is none of your business.
This wilful detachment from conventional politics explains his heavy reliance on McSweeney, whose organizational skills proved devastatingly effective during the election campaign. However, the methods that worked for capturing party machinery have little relevance to governing a nation. The British state cannot be managed like a giant constituency party to be purged of dissenting voices.
The Gathering Storm: Mutiny or Managed Decline?
Labour MPs increasingly view parliamentary discipline as pointless when dealing with a leader of such malleable conviction. Many now believe that energy spent trying to influence Starmer or participate in his project is completely wasted. What gets announced today might be reversed tomorrow, making rebellion through attrition more effective than immediate confrontation.
The electoral consequences are becoming alarmingly clear. With voters now channeling disappointment toward Reform UK, Liberal Democrats, Greens, and nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales, Labour faces a potential massacre in next May's council and devolved elections. This moment represents extreme peril for Starmer's leadership, assuming he survives that long.
Some MPs question whether waiting for certain defeat makes sense when changing leadership now could avert greater damage. Others argue that any opinion-poll bounce from new leadership represents a precious, one-off resource better saved until closer to the next general election.
Missing from these calculations is any consensus about who might replace Starmer or how their programme would differ. The prime minister's defenders cite this flaw in transition planning as reason to maintain the status quo, warning that a leadership contest would look self-indulgent, alarm financial markets, and prioritize party grievances over public concerns.
Yet these familiar warnings increasingly sound like what one despairing MP called the hollow knell of low ambition - the failure to define Starmerism as anything beyond tactical survival. The defence of painful policy compromises as means to an end rings hollow when the destination appears to be nothing more than a labyrinth of endless means.
Most Labour MPs have tried to remain loyal - defending the party line publicly, obeying whips, believing assurances that their concerns were heard. Having extended so much benefit of the doubt, many now feel like mugs. Though not naturally mutinous, increasing numbers see rebellion as their only remaining option.
As Edgar ultimately concludes in King Lear, speaking what we feel, not what we ought to say has become the quality most craved by Labour MPs in their future leader - and most painfully absent in their current one. The weight of this sad political moment grows heavier by the day, and the question of how much longer Labour will bear it remains unanswered.
