Best Of

From the Guardian

Backbench Labour MP Olivia Blake said it feels like Keir Starmer’s operation has “gone into the bunker”.

Discussing last week’s reshuffle, she told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme:

It does feel like they’ve gone into the bunker, but they’ve actually thrown half the people out of the bunker at the moment, and we need to get back to a much more inclusive parliamentary Labour party (PLP), inclusive discussions happening with ministers and better representation around the cabinet table.

After a disastrous week in which Angela Rayner resigned and Peter Mandelson was sacked as ambassador to Washington, Labour MPs have begun to ask whether Starmer could be challenged as prime minister.

A number of MPs said a challenge was likely if local and Welsh elections went badly next May. Some said the one thing now protecting Starmer was the lack of an agreed replacement.

People just felt that it was such a large reshuffle and, you know, people who were actually delivering in their posts were moved. And it just kind of felt like there was a real narrowing in who was sat around the table, and that can’t be positive, because I think there’s a sense that the leadership don’t like to be challenged.

Asked about the No 10 operation, she said it was “really embarrassing” if Starmer was not told about Lord Mandelson’s emails to Jeffrey Epstein soon enough, amid suggestions Downing Street was aware of the messages before the prime minister defended the ex-ambassador on Wednesday.

Blake said:

We saw through the welfare reforms that they did the same again. They didn’t tell Keir, they didn’t tell the prime minister how bad it was on the back benches. So, you know, he was putting statements out saying, ‘oh, some people can sound off’. Well, the strength of feeling in the PLP was much, much deeper than that. And again, I just think that whoever’s gatekeeping the information to the prime minister needs to stop. They need to be getting stuff to him much earlier.

She also said backbenchers are frustrated after a number of “own goals” for the government. Blake, the MP for Sheffield Hallam, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme it is “frustrating” that the good work the government has done is “not cutting through” and added:

Instead, we’ve had a number of kind of own goals, and that has meant that we’ve slipped heavily in the polls, and that we seem to be more interested in focusing on each other rather than what’s in the best interest of the country at the moment.

Good morning all. Although the sky doesn't look as though it's going to be 'good' for much longer. Shame as it's the last day of the town's cricket season.
However, 'twas ever thus!

I have long thought Starmer wasn't party leader or PM material, and have said so on several occasions. It was pretty obvious that he himself didn't think so pretty well from when he came into politics. He only got the party leader job because he was seen as someone who'd done a big job reasonably well, and he wasn't Corbyn, and he got the PM's job because the country was sick and tired of the Tories, none of whose recent leaders had been half-competent, and one case at least, flagrantly dishonest and cowardly.
However I'm not sure who else there is on the horizon. Ms Badenoch doesn't impress me, nor do any of the other Tory top brass. Philip in particular comes across, to me anyway, as a nasty piece of work. Davey doesn't seem to do much wrong; his problem is that the media appears to have, collectively, resolved to ignore him and the LibDems generally.
I don't know anyone whose opinions I respect who has a high, or even good, opinion of Farage and he comes across as someone who snaps an answer to a problem without thinking about it.

If I didn't care about how my children and grandchildren will be able to manage their lives I'd be content to shuffle off and leave everyone to it.

But I do care, and I'm fearful. Some of my 'descendant' are looking to Australia, and I suspect that that's wise.

There are two giant USPs up for grabs and only Starmer can realistically grab both. One is Rejoin the second is showing decisive action in putting a stop to Israel. Both would be massively popular.

The Party Conference would be the time. it would require a massive reset but it's there for the taking

And neither would address the fundamental challenges this country faces (although I would support both).

However, where I agree with you is that it might give Starmer the boost in popularity he needs to be able to deliver some of the difficult medicine @Stuartinromford prescribed at the end of the last thread.

I increasingly think Starmer doesn't have the competence to deliver real solutions unfortunately.

I dont think a change of policy on the EU or Israel would do, and Starmers endless reshuffles in the back office are a joke.

The problem is that Starmer has been tested and found wanting. The wooden, directionless waffling Starmer is the real thing.

He needs to be replaced, the question is when, how and by whom. Rayner going has created a vacuum.

He's only been "tested and found wanting" in the same way Sunak was.

I think that's the main disappointment for those of us who haven't developed a vitriolic dislike for the Prime Minister - the thought he might have been able to move the country forward and tackle the huge issues but, like his immediate predecessors, it's not as though he's tried something and it hasn't worked but he's simply not tried.

These issues are complex and multi-layered and evolving whether immigration, economic growth or our political and economic relationships with the world but I sense (and the Sky Immigration debate convinced me further) no one in any party has any coherent, practical and affordable (and legal) solutions so we muddle on and we end up with Continuity Sunak.

The Truss Experience has clearly left its mark, not so much on the country or even the Conservative Party but on the willingness of the political class to be "bold" or "radical" or "courageous" (you can choose your own word). At a time when the right to offend and the right to be offended is being tested as never before, political leadership seems terrified of giving if not offence then of putting forward ideas and policies which might well benefit the greater good but which would undoubtedly alienate a section of society whether they be pensioners, other welfare recipients, high tax payers, property owners, car drivers, racists, non-racists etc. etc.

The ability of social media to mobilise and vocalise discontent has had a huge impact on the political process.

Someone here remarked the other day that the downfall of a PM is down to the same thing that had been considered their strength.

That is true of Starmer. After the turmoil of the Brexit fiasco, covid, partygate, the brief Truss farce, Starmer looked the part of the dull technocrat, but it's that dull technocrat style that has brought him to the point of defenestration just a year after a landslide.

We always over react when replacing leaders, so expect another vacuous showman.

Interesting. I was quite a fan of the PM and liked the dull technocratiness. There was also a dull competence that infuriated Conservatives who had to sit and watch the feeble slightly malign Kemi making no progress at all.

I didn't care about Rayner. I didn't think she was any good and he did all the right things and handled it with despatch and no one ever voted for a Party because they liked the No2.

......Then came Mandy. I wasn't a fan and didn't like the appointment. The idea of putting someone in Trump's inner circle to massage his ego (or anything else he wanted massaging) was faintly repellent.

I'd no interest in Epstein or his friendship with Mandy so had no problem with the revelations when they came out.

.........but then came the sacking and the unwind.....and the whole creepiness of how Starmer does his business hit me like a giant kipper in the face......

Fixed for you....

dull competence -> dull incompetence...

The only time he isn't is weirdly dealing with Trump. Not a pretty sight though kissing Trump arse to get a 5% discount.

I don't understand why Lucy Powell is being seen as some kind of saviour for Labour. She's completely useless and out of touch with reality. Can someone from the Labour side of the fence explain the enthusiasm for her? I understood why they were hyping up Rayner, but Powell just seems extremely middle of the road full, just like Starmer.

This misunderstands the power politics process. To stand for deputy leader in these circumstances means you are not in the top rank. Philippson stands because a minister has to and she drew the short straw. Powell stood and got the nominations not because she is any good - that's irrelevant - because she has just been sacked and both has nothing to lose and is the proxy for the 'We Want Proper Labour Not Starmer' cause.

The election is about neither candidate. If Powell wins (which she will) Starmer is certainly headed for the door. If Philippson were to win, his position is consolidated but not, I suspect, for long. Wait for the budget and the winter.

None of this begins to get close to the real problem: Starmer would like to run the economy in such a way that it doesn't crash, though he isn't good at it. Back bencher policy is to not care about the matter but to dish out for free money.

starmer and Reeves would cope if they had back benchers who can do add ups and takeaways. Same old Labour.

Your certainty that Powell will win is misplaced, I think. Phillipson is quite formidable, and is a much better speaker. There will be hustings and so on. I'd put the odds around 60:40 in Phillipson's favour at the moment.

He's not a Labour member so I don't know why he's so certain about how Labour members such as yourself will vote. Iirc 2024 was his first time voting for Labour and he's very much an outsider to the Labour party.

My read of the race is that the PM is probably pretty comfortable with either of these two winning the membership vote. Neither will offer substantial opposition nor build independent power bases, they are both middle of the road centre left, not that hard left rabble rouser who I think he actually feared making the ballot.

Spot on. The "hard left" candidate only won 24 MP nominations - they are weak in the PLP and offer little threat to Starmer.