In a matter of days, the House of Commons will reconvene for a grand governmental reset: the King's Speech for the next parliamentary session, outlining the Starmer administration's legislative agenda and priorities. On Wednesday, the King will deliver the text crafted by his prime minister, accompanied by the pageantry this old nation does so well. Political hostilities will resume, with Kemi Badenoch taunting Starmer about his own backbenchers plotting to oust him, pointing fingers at them, mocking ambitious frontbench contenders, and generally enjoying herself.
The natural reaction in such circumstances is usually for the parliamentary Labour Party to close ranks and display loyalty, however hollow their feelings might be about their disappointing leader. Will that happen this time? It would feel strange to defend against opposition attacks while simultaneously unseating a serving prime minister who has made clear his intention to lead the party into the next election. Soon, bills will be introduced, committee work will need to be done, and the party will be reminded of its primary purpose: governing the country, not squabbling over who is best among Wes, Andy, and Ange.
After that comes the summer recess, then party conference, and almost before we know it, 2026 will have passed. I believe Starmer will still be in charge. The next 72 hours or so of hysteria will be crucial and dangerous. It is a narrow window of opportunity for Starmer's critics to mobilise against him. It feels absurd for a Labour prime minister to launch phase two of his government while dealing with a leadership challenge, and the party will be rightly mocked for it. That, of course, wouldn't necessarily prevent them from such an act of self-harm, but it surely constrains them.
Tomorrow, Starmer will have an opportunity to set out his own vision, to show he has one, and more importantly, to proclaim to the wider electorate the genuine achievements of his government thus far. He ought to address their main concerns expressed so forcefully in last week's elections: economic prospects, living standards, public services, welfare reform, and immigration. There may even be a reshuffle in the coming days. He will meet European leaders to promote the closer relationship with the EU most of his party earnestly yearns for.
Starmer still enjoys all the advantages of incumbency. Unlike most of his rivals inside and outside his party, he can do things as well as make speeches and ask questions. His other advantage is that his internal rivals are divided about who should replace him, how to do it, and when. That certainly doesn't inspire much confidence in their ability to succeed. I cannot keep up with the various complex stratagems that have emerged anonymously via the Lobby system for Labour to be rid of its supposedly dud leader.
Ed Miliband reportedly wants a timeline for Starmer's departure, which would be the worst of all worlds: a lame duck premier as Labour indulges in a civil war. Andy Burnham must somehow find that electoral unicorn of our times: a safe Labour seat where voters are happy rubber stamping a soft left candidate being foisted on them in an unnecessary by-election (not to mention the equally doomed attempt by Labour to retain the Greater Manchester mayoralty that would follow). Burnham, by the way, has already rejected Clive Lewis's gift of the Norwich South constituency, which would be another easy win for the Greens.
Catherine West has offered herself as a stalking horse to prompt someone, anyone, in the cabinet to organise a palace coup and take over. But so far, the horse hasn't managed to get out of her stables. Her move has already been dismissed by leader of the Labour left, Richard Burgon. That is how quarrelsome Labour can be. We also know that Angela Rayner would be destroyed by the Tory press, and every time she got up at PMQs, Badenoch would tell her she is a tax dodger with no democratic mandate. I have seen rumours about a Rayner-Streeting dream ticket, installing him as a fast-talking chancellor, and also that Rayner wants to sack Shabana Mahmood from the Home Office, hardly a unifying move.
Wes Streeting and Mahmood are, I think, far too right wing for Labour members anyway. There is no consensus on whether the Green Party or Reform is their biggest threat. The only thing the contenders do agree on is that they don't want to make the first move. The entire debate is policy-free and unencumbered by the parlous state of the public finances. Most calculations assume that Starmer would stand aside quietly, though he says he won't walk away. It therefore is not at all obvious why a change of leader and prime minister would be easy or even advantageous to the party. That is why, despite their fratricidal habits, Labour won't kick Starmer out. Not yet.
