Sir Keir Starmer’s days are numbered: 21 days, I’d recommend. On the morning of Friday 8 May, after he suffers humiliation in the local, Scottish and Welsh elections, Starmer should step into Downing Street and announce the message has been received – he’s no longer the best person to lead the country.
Yesterday’s revelations about the vetting of Peter Mandelson expose so many of Starmer’s weaknesses. It’s extraordinary that a former director of public prosecutions, who spent years probing colleagues for the truth, should have shown so little curiosity about Mandelson’s suitability to be British ambassador to Washington.
Why did nobody in Whitehall, the Foreign Office or the security services tell Starmer that Mandelson had failed the initial vetting process when the PM was telling MPs and the media that “due process” had been followed? Did Starmer not check with senior officials beforehand whether saying that was 100 per cent correct?
Starmer said today it was “unforgivable” that neither he nor any other minister were told. He’s “absolutely furious”, he says. But Starmer is the Prime Minister. He sets the culture and ethos in Whitehall, which determines how civil servants and ministers behave, and he is ultimately responsible.
Can you imagine senior officials failing to tell Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair about such important details? They wouldn’t have dared. But when Starmer expresses so little curiosity about what’s going on, then perhaps people feel they don’t have to keep him fully informed, or to deliver news he may find awkward.
Astonishingly, the BBC reported last September that Starmer asked Mandelson just three questions about his links with Jeffrey Epstein before appointing him in 2024 as ambassador to Washington (he sent his questions by email through his chief of staff Morgan McSweeney). Instead, for such a major appointment, Starmer should have questioned Mandelson face-to-face and posed scores of questions – including tough follow-ups – about Epstein, China, and more besides. That’s what any sensible employer would do when recruiting a senior public colleague. It suggests Starmer was embarrassed to put Mandelson on the spot, or to probe deeply.
Until 24 hours ago, I argued that Labour should keep Starmer as leader, at least for the time being, no matter how badly the party performs in next month’s votes. During this period of peril in global affairs, I believed continuity was in both Britain’s interests and the world’s. And nearly all the alternatives to Starmer, I argued, lacked his experience on the international stage.
Starmer played a leading role in recently assembling the “Coalition of the Willing” to support Ukraine against Russia, and is one of Volodymyr Zelensky’s most loyal friends. He’s been highly active in chivvying Europe to accept that we can no longer rely on the US to defend our continent from tyranny.
In recent weeks, Starmer has also stood up to Donald Trump, insisting it’s not in Britain’s interests to support his disastrous war against Iran.
But Starmer’s relatively good record in foreign affairs was seriously exposed this week when the former Nato chief George Robertson accused Starmer’s government of “corrosive complacency” over delaying decisions on the 10-year plan to raise defence spending.
The plan was due last September, but the Treasury and the Chancellor Rachel Reeves are holding things up, and it could be months before it’s agreed.
Robertson’s view is shared by almost everyone in the foreign policy and defence communities. And the fact that Lord Robertson – a former defence secretary and stalwart of the Labour right – could use such a humiliating phrase shows how Starmer’s authority is evaporating.
Would Churchill, Thatcher, Blair or Brown have let such a vital decision drag on for months when the pathetic state of our armed forces threatens our national security? Of course not.
A strong, determined Prime Minister would summon Rachel Reeves to Number 10, and tell her that unless the 10-year budget was settled within 24 hours, she’ll immediately be sacked. “Action this day,” as Churchill said.
Starmer’s departure is now in the interests of the country, and his party. Labour will want to wait until May so they can blame him for the dreadful election results. But Sir Olly Robbins, whom Starmer effectively sacked last night as head of the Foreign Office, may determine otherwise. Who knows what Robbins will reveal when interrogated by the Commons foreign affairs committee, or if he does a big TV interview? Having been made the scapegoat by Starmer, Robbins might now hasten the PM’s departure.
In choosing its next leader, Labour needs someone steeped in politics. The party requires someone keen to get to the bottom of what’s going on, to pose persistent, pertinent questions. But the urgent qualifications are strength and courage.
The best fit is Wes Streeting. He shows great communication skills, which Starmer lacks, and has made steady progress in improving the health service and cutting waiting times.
More important, Streeting has shown courage in standing up to the resident doctors over their outrageous pay demands and strikes. More than any colleague, Streeting has the strength and resolution that Starmer lacks, which would restore Labour’s standing with voters. Streeting would never allow arguments over defence spending to drag on too long.
Streeting knows what needs doing. Yesterday he said much more should be spent on defence, and said welfare should “definitely” be cut. Brave words, since cutting welfare will worry many MPs, whose backing Streeting will need in a leadership vote. But bravery is what’s needed in whoever takes over at the top of Labour. It’s in short supply.
Hence then, the article about there s one only man who can save labour and it s not starmer was published today ( ) and is available on inews ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( There’s one only man who can save Labour – and it’s not Starmer )
Also on site :