The questions buzzing around UK Parliament right now can be framed very simply. How long has Prime Minister Keir Starmer got in office? Will he resign? Who might succeed him?
This could be wishful thinking from ambitious rivals in the governing Labour party or opportunistic opponents elsewhere. Even so, one way of looking at the Starmer premiership since his party’s landslide in the general election of June 2024 is a sense of disappointment. The mood at that election was for change.
But British voters appeared to change away from something rather than enthusiastically change towards something else. The sense was of a break from 14 years of Conservative prime ministers, two of whom were considered to be particular failures, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss. Voters therefore gave Mr Starmer’s Labour party a huge majority in Parliament and a mandate for change.
But now, less than two years later what has not changed is the sense of political malaise. Mr Starmer’s party trails badly in opinion polls. Voters are reluctant to return to the Conservatives. In the search for something new, discontented voters seem to regard two relative upstarts – the Green party and Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party – as worth a look.
Both parties, one on the left and one on the right, are doing relatively well in opinion polls. Labour activists therefore view next month’s local government elections in England and elections for the Scottish and Welsh parliaments with a sense of dread. The mood is again for change, but to whom? And for what?
No UK general election is required before 2029, but within Labour some wonder whether they should get rid of Mr Starmer soon and find a new party leader. They argue that he has become a crisis magnet. After less than two years as Prime Minister, his key team has been in constant flux. He is now on his third cabinet secretary, and there have been two, three or more changes in top jobs in the Foreign Office, in his chief of staff and as his director of communications.
Such churn does not create a sense of political competence, management skills or confidence in Mr Starmer’s leadership. He appears either serially unlucky or a poor judge of people he puts into key appointments. Such doubts coalesce in the never-ending scandals surrounding Peter Mandelson, Mr Starmer’s choice for the top diplomatic job of UK ambassador to the US.
The newest revelations involve Mr Mandelson’s failure to clear rigorous security checks, although the reasons for this are not entirely clear. The result is clearer. Mr Starmer’s future hangs in the balance. His response in dismissing another civil servant involved in the Mandelson appointment failure – the head of the Foreign Office, the highly regarded Olly Robbins – may yet blow back on Mr Starmer’s own judgment.
For those unfamiliar with the workings of Westminster, it is worth remembering that Mr Mandelson’s nickname was “the Prince of Darkness”. That might have been a clue to his controversial character.
Called on Tuesday before a committee of MPs to explain the mess over security vetting, Mr Robbins insisted that there was an “atmosphere of pressure” from the Prime Minister’s office to approve Mr Mandelson’s appointment, a “dismissive approach” to vetting his background and a “very strong expectation” that Mr Mandelson should be “in post and in America” as soon as possible.
There is, therefore, a degree of gloom in Westminster and beyond about the direction the country is taking, the competence of those nominally in charge and a lack of trust in politicians and political parties. These problems are made more acute by world events, especially the possibility of both a looming national security and even an economic crisis.
The Iran war, uncertainties about US President Donald Trump’s commitment to Nato, the problematic “special” relationship between the UK and Mr Trump’s America, and scepticism about the skills and ethics of political leaders all combine like clouds of gloom.
That could change, but for Mr Starmer things could also rapidly deteriorate here at home. English local elections and Scottish and Welsh parliamentary elections take place on May 7. If – as seems probable – the Labour party does badly in all of these elections and especially in former Labour heartlands, MPs may conclude that change at the top is inevitable.
Regime change in Downing Street may therefore be more likely than regime change in Tehran, although MPs must ask themselves why would getting rid of Mr Starmer necessarily make British voters happier about the government and more likely to vote Labour in future? Who would succeed Mr Starmer? Who might do better? Who are the rising stars, the charismatic figures-in-waiting?
Big Labour political names – Angela Rayner and Andy Burnham – are gossiped about and highly regarded in the party, but neither has an easy path either to unseat Mr Starmer or succeed him. The really important question is therefore not about political personalities. It’s about a historic British political system that does not always attract the best and the brightest and in which half a dozen parties now compete for votes at a time when public opinion is fractured in many ways.
British people may not get the leaders we want. We may not even get the ones we vote for. Instead, we end up with the ones that an antiquated political system allows to thrive. The next few weeks will prove consequential for Mr Starmer but also for the rest of us.
If Britain continues to change prime ministers so often and under such troubled circumstances, perhaps we need to think a bit less about personalities and a bit more about the way we do politics in our ancient democracy.
