Back in 2020, when Sir Keir Starmer was just getting going with his bid to lead Labour, I was casting around the party for his supporters. I wanted to know why they were backing a relatively new MP who, as far as I could work out, didn’t seem to stand for very much. Did they have any clearer idea?
One of those supporters was John Healey. He liked Starmer, he told me; not just as a friendly face he could enjoy a drink with, but as someone who was serious and clear-eyed about the challenges that Labour faced.
That last point has always been the most important thing for Healey, who is very much a party man – someone most concerned about how Labour can triumph, rather than give in to factional infighting. He is also not at all prone to drama or personal attacks – and yet, in his damning resignation letter, he offered plenty of both.
It was a far more damaging resignation than former health secretary Wes Streeting’s departure from government just two weeks ago. Although Healey has been touted by some as a potential leader, he doesn’t radiate personal ambition in the way Streeting always has – and is far more understated an operator.
So, when an intervention like this – which is anything but understated – is something Healey deems necessary, you know things really are very serious indeed. He was an early supporter of Starmer, but has now given up on that project. And he clearly thinks that the sooner it is over, the better, because otherwise he would have “quiet quit”, rather than doing something that undermines the very foundations of Starmer’s premiership.
Healey knew Starmer had seen the Defence Investment Plan (DIP) as one of the things he could point to as a legacy of his time in office. He also knew from the start of this week onwards, though, that Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves were not going to deliver a DIP worthy of the challenges that Britain faces, or that would stand up to much scrutiny.
As he wrote pithily in his letter: “You have been unable, and the Treasury has been unwilling, to commit the resources that the nation needs to defend the country at this time of rising threats.” He contrasted the verbal commitments Starmer had made and the Prime Minister’s own assessment of the threats that the country faces, with a failure to produce a “DIP that meets the moment in this way”.
This meant, he wrote: “I am being forced to make decisions that would reduce the readiness of our [Armed] Forces and increase the risk to personnel on operations, and could make the country less safe.”
That letter is worded not just so that anyone who agrees to take over as defence secretary will find it excruciating to have to explain why they think that the DIP is OK after all, but also to suggest that Starmer has no authority. “You have been unable, and the Treasury has been unwilling” is a formulation that suggests that the Prime Minister is, in fact, entirely ruled by Reeves in his decision-making. So, Starmer now has to defend not just whatever ragged plan is eventually published before July’s Nato summit, but also his own leadership.
It’s hard to see how he can, though. With no real legacy beyond potentially limiting access to social media for under-16s – which he hasn’t actually done yet, either – Starmer has no evidence that he is someone who does get things done. He has managed to annoy one of the most level-headed and loyal ministers Labour has had in the past few decades.
In just a week’s time, he will likely have Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham back on the green benches behind him in Parliament as an MP and now an even more credible challenger to his leadership. Healey could easily serve under a Burnham premiership instead, and other ministers and ambitious backbenchers will be thinking similarly about their future: do they really want to stay on the sinking ship, or position themselves for the next leader?
As for that next leader, they too will now have to prioritise defence spending in order to pass the Healey test. Similarly, whoever they choose as Chancellor (clearly not Reeves, now) will have to meet that test too.
This is not comfortable territory for any of the candidates, who are aware that the reason former Nato chief George Robertson chose to contrast welfare spending with defence recently was that Labour MPs are emotional about the former and awkward about the latter.
But with this resignation, which is the death knell for Starmer and any hope the Prime Minister has of a legacy, Healey has changed the terms of debate in the party he loves for a lot longer than Starmer will survive.
Hence then, the article about starmer is done and his legacy is trashed 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 ( Starmer is done – and his legacy is trashed )
Also on site :