A Lame Duck

Keir Starmer has lost the support of the parliamentary Labour Party and will be immensely lucky to still be leader by the end of May, once the dust has settled on what many are predicting to be a local election wipeout for Labour. His catastrophic error to appoint Peter Mandelson as US Ambassador, despite knowing of his links to Jeffrey Epstein, has proven to be the ever-present thorn-in-the-side of the Starmer premiership, with seemingly constant new revelations coming to light every week or so.

Stamer's lousy Commons performance on Monday evening concerning Mandelson's appointment was the definitive turning point in his losing of support from the backbenches. Labour MP after Labour MP stood up to either solemnly question Starmer's judgement, or, more commonly, with grave worry, denigrate Starmer's folly or his leadership.

Keeping him in power has been the lack of redoubtable challengers towards his leadership. The decision in January to block Andy Burnham, the mayor of Manchester, to stand in the Gorton and Denton by-election was a clear indication of Starmer's imperilled position. Starmer has, however, appointed a cabinet bereft of any challenge or talent. There are no Blair-esque figures, or popular young-guns waiting in the wings looking to take up the mantle. That is for now.

With the aforementioned elections on the horizon, looking to do more damage to Labour since the 2019 election, it seems highly unlikely that the Labour hierarchy will fail to rally around a new figure to carry them forth into the next general election, post-election-mortem. To begin the process of Starmer removal, 20% of sitting Labour MPs (81 currently) would need to nominate a willing candidate to step forward and challenge him in a leadership contest. But for what gain? The next guy or gal will have all the bureaucratic instincts of Sir Keir, with probably less public service experience and less aptitude. Wes Streeting? David Lammy? All potential candidates please line up.

What lies at the centre of the matter is the rather startling preconception that Britain has become essentially ungovernable–something Liz Truss has been adamant about for a while. If you can't stop the appointment of a known friend of a pedophile, what else can't you do?Well you can't hold the guy at the top accountable either: Starmer's 2nd Chief of Staff, his Director of Communications, the Head of the Civil Service and the Head of the Foreign Office have all gone, while Starmer still occupies No.10, ruthlessly clawing on to every last lever of power.

However, more serious, pertinent questions still persist here: Why did Starmer employ Peter Mandelson, despite his knowledge of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and his two sackings in prior Labour governments? That isn't just bad judgement–that's ludicrously poor judgment, almost implausible for a former director of public prosecutions. For someone so evidently obsessed by processes, why was normal process abrogated for the Prince of Darkness? Those are both questions that the pm refused to answer before parliament on Monday evening.

It cuts right to the heart of No.10. And with the now defenestrated Olly Robbins testifying that Mandelson's appointment came as a result of "constant pressure" from Downing Street, these questions become even more apparent. It implies that the pm is, as Ed Davey said, "in office, but not in power".

As I am wont to return to, these issues don't change anything. If and when Starmer does go, the next trumped-up party hack will just regurgitate and reuse the same uni-party talking points that the British people have become accustomed to for years. One notes that the "Conservative" party rushed to call an emergency debate on the scandal, but is yet to call an emergency debate on, say, the demographic displacement of the native people living in the UK. Or the mountains of debt that they and the Labour Party racked up. On both sides of the aisle, the issues plaguing the nation seem to so often get dropped in favour of more fashionable talking points.

If Starmer somehow miraculously survives this scandal, along with the predicted losses in May, it won't be down to his manoeuvring, it'll be down to the sheer lack of competition for his job. Who would want his job though? Starmer's rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic while the British state's bureaucracy stays afloat. Prime ministers come and go, but the state only grows.