How did Keir Starmer reach this point?

As such, it seems sensible amid the fury and pace of this week’s news to take a step back for a moment and attempt to understand why a landslide winning Prime Minister is on the brink, barely 20 months into the first Labour government in 15 years.

In many ways, Keir has the best Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) a leader has had in a long time. A clever focus on selections (overseen by Morgan McSweeney) saw many bright, sensible and moderate MPs returned to parliament. And yet this week, there are reports of Labour backbenchers holding the PM hostage and making demands, top of which is McSweeney’s head!

What happened? Though many in the PLP and party knew Starmer was not a traditional ‘Labour man’, wasn’t ideologically driven, and hadn’t come up through the traditional Labour Party routes, this was seen by many as a positive after the traumatic Corbyn years. However, alongside an assumption of competence, was an unsaid expectation that Starmer did broadly know the direction he wanted to travel and could tie this into an overarching narrative.

The realisation that not only was his competence not assured, but the fact there seemed to be no narrative, was the point at which the mostly loyal and mostly moderate PLP started to worry. A series of self-inflicted errors only made this worry grow.

In addition, a revolving door of No.10 advisers left people confused – who was in charge, who has Starmer’s ear, who is feeding things back to a PM looking increasingly isolated? And most importantly, who was looking after the PLP?

The reality of parliamentary management is that MPs need a lot of looking after, hand-holding and reassuring. They are on the front line making the case for the government on a daily basis, and need to feel inspired, supported and listened to. It became clear this was not happening and a vacuum had developed.

That vacuum led to several humiliating U-turns on issues such as welfare reform, which many people still think could have been delivered if the political strategy had been different. With that early defeat, the PLP could smell weakness. Not only were the rebels emboldened, but those who defended the policy felt humiliated and left high and dry.

The commentariat wondered aloud if this Government didn’t realise that governing would be hard. That all decisions have winners and losers, and holding your nerve is part of the process. What other policy decisions could be up for grabs if No.10 baulks at the mere hint of a rebellion? If there is no clear direction or narrative, what is holding together the government and most importantly what is its purpose beyond managerial?

These questions kept being asked across the party, the PLP and even the Cabinet, and Starmer’s response was felt lacking. It is fair to say that if Starmer was a lucky general before the election he has become a uniquely unlucky one since, and no one can deny how a series of world events and a bleak economic inheritance, have been a major factor in tying his hands.

However, the endless relaunches and new missions, a revolving door of Communications Directors, and a pivot to potential Reform voters on immigration that felt inauthentic, has only made things worse.

We have now had months of leadership speculation surrounding Andy Burnham, Wes Streeting, Angela Rayner – all of which seemed to point to Starmer as a busted flush.

And then Mandelson. Another example of poor judgement, but one so serious and upsetting, that the fury across the party is red hot and palpable. Though, and this is key, in calling for Morgan McSweeney to go and not Keir, they are not pressing the nuclear button just yet. Ultimately, it was the PMs decision to appoint Mandelson, and MPs know this but for now they would rather hide behind calls for the adviser to go and not the PM.

The calculations for this are many – local elections are fast approaching so perhaps better to hold your nerve until the inevitably bad results and call for Starmer’s resignation then. Also, acknowledging that the timing isn’t ideal for any of the potential leadership candidates right now also seems to be influencing MPs.

However, to understand the Labour Party most fully is to know that removing its leader just isn’t in its DNA. To do so requires a lot of MPs to go against their instincts as members of a party and a movement that often swims too deep in sentimentality and ‘family’ analogies.

That is not to say it won’t happen, but it does explain why for now MPs are still hedging their bets for one more roll of the dice with Starmer. More Epstein files will emerge, the police and ISC enquiries will do their thing, and the world will look very different in even a few days. The hope is that it may look a little better, but it is the hope that kills you.