Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[garbon]

I was very excited to see my former MP Thornberry out on the attack. 

[HVC]

Time to give lettuce another shot.

[Sheilbh]

Low key fascinated by the Starmer menu in China (sounds tasty too):

In the UK, Keir Starmer has few fans. I learned that in China it's a very different story
Martin Rowson


The prime minister's meal in a Yunnan restaurant in Beijing has spawned a national menu. The man has, bizarrely, become a phenomenon
Mon 13 Apr 2026 06.00 BST

It's always heartening when people agree with you. I had Keir Starmer down as a non-ideological technocratic centrist dad the moment I first clocked him, with a tin ear for both simple human interaction and the darker subtleties of the political arts. So despite carrying his famous "Ming vase" over the line in the 2024 election, I've been wholly unsurprised by him flatfooting and pratfalling through jagged shards of porcelain ever since, living down to all my worst fears. Now absolutely everybody else thinks he's crap too.

Or so I thought, until a family visit to China last month, when I established a connection beyond mythical Ming vases. The "Keir Starmer menu" has become a foodie phenomenon.

Let me explain. While in Beijing we thought we'd book a table at Yi Zuo Yi Wang, a popular Yunnan restaurant in Chaoyang, an area home to foreign embassies and international media organisations, galleries and happening night-spots. Yi Zuo Yi Wang translates as "In and Out", but that's just a coincidence.


The 'Starmer menu' in Fuzhao Lou restaurant, Kunming. Photograph: Fred Rowson

It's where Starmer and his entourage ate during his visit to China in January, a trip intended to thaw Anglo-Chinese relations after years of Tory froideur. And in one regard, at least, it worked: the Chinese loved him. They loved that he ate with chopsticks. They loved that he said thank you in Chinese. They loved that he came to this particular restaurant twice and ordered exactly the same things off the menu all over again. And I suspect, most of all, they loved him just for being there, while recognising in him one of their own, a modest bureaucrat interested in calm, order and obedience.

Yunnan cuisine features a lot of mushroom-based dishes. In its coverage of Starmer's meal, the Telegraph went big with the scoop that many of these dishes are actually prepared using hallucinogenic mushrooms, but either despite or because of the magic mushrooms, the restaurant has been booked up for months, and we secured our table with some difficulty. This is down to the Starmer Dividend. Interestingly, the interior vibe – exposed brickwork, random glassware and potted plants – is pure triumphalist New Labour Islington chic; the clientele, in addition to business people and occidental diplomats, is definably hipster – all ankle-length trousers and seemingly no socks.

As soon as we sat down we were offered the twice-ordered Starmer menu, printed in English. We ordered the lot (though some of us swapped the Yunnan white wine for mushroom margaritas). And it was absolutely delicious. The only slight disappointment was the stewed rice with mushrooms in a copper pot, which tasted to most of our party as a bit like takeaway special fried rice. According to one ex-pat Beijing YouTuber, this was Starmer's favourite.

And in a spirit of journalistic inquiry we asked the restaurant staff what they thought of Starmer. They said, and I quote: "He was kind, just like us."

Starmer's powers of enchantment aren't restricted to Beijing's diplomatic quarter. About 1,300 miles away in Yunnan province itself, near the Myanmar and Laos borders, in a courtyard restaurant in Dali we were instantly offered, in Chinese and English, copies of the same Starmer menu from In and Out, which we were presumably going to find irresistible. In Kunming, Yunnan's capital, our son and his fiancee spotted Fuzhao Lou restaurant advertising its The Same Style as the Prime Minister menu, with a head and shoulders photo of Starmer giving a thumbs-up sign (though originally probably altered from a photo of the PM making the standard UK political hand gesture indicating "Tough Decision No 37").

All of which adds up to not very much apart from the universal attraction of the exotic. That said, Starmer couldn't be blamed for taking comfort wherever he can, and there are worse places than China to be the object of a little adulation. The country is clean, efficient, polite and friendly. In Beijing you can hear birdsong in the streets thanks to almost all the vehicles being new and electric (we heard a woodpecker about a mile from Tiananmen Square).

The streets teem with hipsters, online influencers and young women cosplaying Tang and Ming dynasty princesses. More than 800 million people have been lifted out of poverty over the past half century, and the country's infrastructure, transport and environmental protection should make any Briton weep when they consider how nearly 50 years of Thatcherite privatisation have pillaged our public realm into ruination. And, of course, they have zero tolerance of any kind of dissent.

Add to that our son's phone's initial translation of the Chinese characters representing Starmer's transliterated name on the sign in Kunming: "British Prime Minister Star Beast". I mean, what's for Keir not to love?

    Martin Rowson is a cartoonist and author

[Richard Hakluyt]

"British Prime Minister Star Beast"   

[Norgy]

I would so use that as my official name! 

[Sheilbh]

That's just a translation too. When he was last Governor of Hong Kong Chris Patton actually got a Chinese nickname (the first Governor to get one and, from my understanding, basically a term of endearment). I'd maybe query how much of an endearment given the nickname was fei Pang or "fat Pang" (Pang was from his Chinese name) - and I think he still has a reputation there for his enjoyment of egg custard tarts (fully understandable)

So maybe Starmer should just take Prime Minister Star Beast rather than hoping for a Chinese nickname.

[Sheilbh]

He said it was "unforgivable" he was not told about the vetting recommendation, which was revealed by the Guardian on Thursday.

Perhaps it is just that someone used the "Rhodesia Solution" on the PM? 

On the "unforgivable" and Starmer's regular statements that he's "furious" about things his government has done, Number 10 are literally briefing that the public will see "angry Starmer" today - a thrilling prospect.

(Also really not sure that's the right tone - even if it's one Starmer seems to adopt quite regularly in response to failure.)

Edit: Oh God it's going to be an urgent Prime Ministerial statement on the state of Arsenal's title challenge isn't it...

Edit: Also feel it's probably not a good sign for the PM if news breaks about the story and a backbench MP leaks the "lines to take" and pre-written questions being distributed by the whips office an hour before his statement.

[Sheilbh]

This does slightly remind me of the end of Boris Johnson when you had Tory grandees nodding along at Starmer and sticking the boot in themselves to cheers from the Labour benches. Or today Labour left MPs nodding to Kemi Badenoch and getting cheered by the Tories - my personal favourite given their history was Diane Abbott making the really, fundamental point that Starmer is incapable of comprehending (as seen in his answer). Via the Mirror (and to the Speaker's mistake I have no doubt that if she were to accept one, she would and should be a Dame):

(And FWIW on party leaders again - I think Badenoch was impressive and Starmer very pointedly did not address some of her specific questions, particularly with the line that she would ask six specific questions and "I have taken the unprecedented step of providing these questions to the Prime Minister in advance. So he has them in front of him." Particularly the question about Sistema - longer video but her questions are the first 8 minutes or so and effective, Starmer's response is less effective I think it's fair to say: https://youtu.be/kgbRwl0wSZM?si=_I7JeFLKiDnHOmjT)

Looking at the leaked "lines to take" document - I suspect it was the attempt to plant a question quoting one of Epstein's victims that provoked someone to leak it to journalists because that's pretty fucking tawdry.

More broadly picking up on some of the points I've made and also the passive point from the recent book, a fairly damning (long) piece in Politico (who could have guessed that firing loads of subordinates would lead to lots of people with a grudge to nurse happy to share very negative comments with journalists ):

Fatal flaw: Keir Starmer's leadership vacuum threatens to swallow him up
The PM's current and former colleagues say the Mandelson scandal has exposed the hollowness of his hands-off style.
April 20, 2026 4:01 am CET
By Tim Ross, Esther Webber and Dan Bloom

LONDON — Keir Starmer's team believed he was the perfect candidate to be British Prime Minister when he took office in July 2024. But winning an election is one thing and running the country, it turns out, requires something else.

Stuck in a months-long crisis over his appointment of Peter Mandelson as U.K. ambassador to Washington, Starmer is now stumbling toward what many on his own side fear is the endgame of his premiership, less than two years since leading his Labour Party to a landslide victory.

While he rages at the failings of "the state" and fires officials for letting him down, many of those he has burned over the past 21 months are now turning on him.

And they are bitter.

"Lots of people think Keir Starmer is a good man who is out of his depth," said one Labour insider. "Wrong. He's an asshole who's out of his depth."

A dozen politicians, aides and officials — including some who have worked intimately with the prime minister in Downing Street — spoke to POLITICO on condition of anonymity, because the matter is sensitive, and described a leader defined primarily by his absence.

Starmer, they say, has no ability to manage a team; an aversion to conflict; no guiding mission for power; no energy to drive change; little interest in people; and no interest in political strategy. While not all agree, some suggest Starmer just isn't willing to do the tough work a prime minister must — perhaps because he likes his time away from the office more than he should.

So why did the former chief prosecutor for England and Wales ever want to be prime minister? "Because he is ambitious," said a former official who worked closely with Starmer. "It was another profession he could climb to the top of."

The crisis of faith threatening to end Starmer's leadership springs from his ill-fated decision in 2024 to appoint Mandelson, a Labour grandee and former Cabinet minister, to be British ambassador to the United States, and thus a key conduit to the incoming Trump administration. This past September, Starmer fired Mandelson over his friendship with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, but damaging new revelations about the government's handling of the episode are still coming to light.

The Guardian reported last week that a vetting officer had recommended that Mandelson should be denied full security clearance — which would be a key bar to doing the job of ambassador — but the Foreign Office granted it to him anyway. Somehow, the prime minister himself was not told at the time about that critical security judgment, and did not find out about it until a few days ago.

The scandal has cost Mandelson, the PM's chief of staff Morgan McSweeney and last week the head of the Foreign Office Oliver Robbins — who is said to have overseen the vetting decision — their jobs. Opposition leaders are calling for the prime minister to resign, claiming he misled Parliament when he said all the correct vetting procedures had been followed.

One thing not in dispute is that Robbins decided not to tell the prime minister about the vetting recommendation. Starmer's allies argue fiercely, therefore, that this cannot be used as evidence of his incuriosity. But the extraordinary saga nonetheless dredged up long-running questions about the way Starmer governs. One government minister fumed after Robbins' sacking on Friday: "Why aren't there questions? Why isn't there challenge? It seems like there is a bit of a theme."

Starmer "was sold as the painstaking, methodical, ethical, principled lawyer," said Hannah White, from the Institute for Government think tank in London. "Given what has now emerged about what was known about Mandelson, you could say that it's surprising that somebody with all those characteristics would think that was an O.K. appointment to make."

Starmer didn't know Mandelson had failed security vetting, and on Friday said he was "furious" with the civil servants who were involved. His allies rallied around that case over the weekend, including Cabinet minister Liz Kendall who told the BBC on Sunday: "If he had known ... he would not have made that appointment."

Cabinet minister Douglas Alexander told Times Radio on Monday: "It seems inexplicable to any of us who serve as ministers that officials didn't speak to the prime minister in those circumstances." Further, he added, "Not only at the time was that information withheld, but the information was subsequently withheld at a point at which, as a matter of record, the prime minister was speaking on these issues both in parliament and indeed in a press conference."

A government official privately emphasized the same argument when asked to respond to the criticisms contained in this article. There is "no comparison" with discredited ex-prime minister Boris Johnson, who was found to have deliberately misled parliament.

But the prime minister remains in the danger zone. He is set to explain himself to MPs in Parliament on Monday. On Tuesday, Robbins is due to take questions from MPs on the Foreign Affairs Committee. Either of these occasions could put another nail in Starmer's coffin.

"I do think this is quite terminal for him," said a former No. 10 aide. "I just don't see how he keeps getting away with it."

The frontman

The Mandelson saga marks a spectacular decline for a leader who won a massive landslide less than two years ago and entered government promising to restore trust in politics.

Back in 2024, Starmer won praise for his center-left Labour Party's highly disciplined campaign. His willingness not to interfere in the work of his talented election campaign team won him loyalty and credit from his own side and among analysts.

"He's a perfect candidate, because he's a candidate — he doesn't try to be campaign manager, or speechwriter or logistics manager," one Labour official said, shortly after the 2024 victory. "He's good at properly backing his people and making everyone understand that they have his support to do the job." In other words, as the national election frontman he delegated a lot, and it worked.

Against an unpopular Conservative Party which had been in power for 14 years, Starmer's willingness to follow advice helped Labour win two-thirds of the seats in the House of Commons.

Of course, a prime minister needs to be able to delegate and trust their team. But the limits of that strategy have become clear in government — as the Mandelson episode confirms.

Starmer trusted his first-choice chief of staff, Sue Gray, to have prepared an oven-ready plan for power, which Labour would roll out the day after winning the election. It turned out no such plan existed.

Starmer then replaced Gray with his election mastermind McSweeney, who had been serving in a political director role. McSweeney was given the power to provide political input on Starmer's behalf into a huge swathe of policy decisions across government and, for a time, things improved.

But a year and a half later, McSweeney quit over the decision to appoint the disgraced Mandelson as ambassador to the U.S. — paying the price for the advice his boss appeared consistently happy to take.

"He delegates so much responsibility," said the former No. 10 aide quoted above. "Yes, you delegate some stuff because you're the prime minister and you can't physically do everything, but you do have to have ownership and control."

Scapegoat strategy

Delegating of course requires having some trusted lieutenants to delegate to. Unfortunately, Starmer has largely failed to hold together a team of advisers and top officials who can drive through his government's plans. The churn in senior personnel is remarkable.

It is a common observation among officials and MPs that leaders who are successful and stay the course in office, like Labour ex-PM Tony Blair and Tory former premier David Cameron, keep a stable team of talented loyalists throughout.

In the short time since becoming premier, Starmer has had three chiefs of staff, five directors of communications, three cabinet secretaries to run the civil service, and two principal private secretaries in charge of his office.

"He self-evidently cannot build a functional team," one former official said. "It's not a serious operation."

"He is absolutely unable to run a team either in Downing Street or in Cabinet or across the wider government and it comes back to the fact that he is fundamentally pretty uninterested in people."

It has now become a problem of trust. In government, Starmer has become known for ducking responsibility, according to another former official who worked with him. "His team don't trust him because he throws other people under the bus."

The decision to appear on Friday as the familiar figure of a man "furious" with his own government machine for failing him went down poorly, Whitehall officials told POLITICO. "He's furious with the state? Well, bad luck," one ex-colleague of Starmer's said. "You are in fact in charge of the state."

No vision, mate

Starmer doesn't like to take difficult decisions or to arbitrate between Cabinet colleagues who clash, according to several of the people interviewed for this article. For example a dispute between Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Defense Secretary John Healey over military budgets is stalled. If Starmer wanted to, he could solve it at a stroke, the people said.

Instead, problems are left to drift, and announcements are made but not followed up because the PM won't use his own authority to drive through change.

Even as they strode into Downing Street, Starmer's team worried privately that their leader's passive nature could be a problem in power. He could be too reactive, too slow to respond to problems, they feared, and too reluctant to get on the front foot and put forward his own positive vision for the country. He set out "missions," "milestones" and a "plan for change," but many of his MPs craved something more.

Anyone still hoping for a Starmer vision should give up now, according to his former colleagues. "He doesn't have an ideology that anchors him and his government, which means that they don't have a guiding vision or destination," one former government official said. "Without ideology or governing vision, you have no frame of reference for taking or explaining tough decisions."

"He is fundamentally uninterested in political strategy," a Labour insider added. "Some people just think in those terms all the time — what does this event mean? How can we turn it to our advantage? But his brain doesn't work that way."

That lack of a guiding vision and a distaste for political scheming contribute to the biggest flaw of all: the prime minister's tendency not to be there when he is needed.

Many of those who spoke to POLITICO described a lack of "curiosity" in the PM. "He just doesn't ask questions, on policy, politics or apparently propriety either," another former official said. Some ministers agree.

A current government official described Starmer's approach to interrogating policies and other decisions as "hear no evil, see no evil." The official added: "You can't claim to be this meticulous lawyer, this micro-manager, this mandarin and then not care for stuff like this."

Boris Johnson vibes 

One bizarre example of his passivity is that Starmer apparently does not even express a strong preference about how he wants to spend his own time. "He is so hands-off about his diary," another former No. 10 official said. Referring to Jill Cuthbertson, a top aide who used to run Starmer's diary, this person said: "It's kind of like, 'what has Jill put in my diary today,' and then if it was something he didn't enjoy doing, someone else would bear the brunt of it, but he'd never be involved in the front end of 'here's how I would like to spend my day.'"

There is one famous exception: Friday evenings. In the final days before the 2024 election, Starmer made a point of saying he had a rule that he would not work after 6 p.m. on Fridays because he wanted to protect family time with his teenage children. Predictably, his political opponents claimed at the time that this was evidence the Labour leader would not work hard enough if he won power.

Plenty of people in Starmer's team — including otherwise critical ex-colleagues — say the charge is unfair. And it is certainly true, for example, that Starmer frequently calls world leaders and attends many meetings on international crises such as Ukraine and the Middle East, at all hours of the day and week. Responding to claims that the PM is unwilling to force through contentious plans, and doesn't work as much as he should after hours, one of Starmer's current No. 10 officials said: "Keir knocks heads together and works around the clock."

But some former officials still see problems. In the end, the job "demands" constant work and a willingness to spend every waking moment strategizing about politics, one said. And senior government staffers could find the premier eerily quiet outside normal office hours. "He certainly isn't bombarding colleagues with ideas or thoughts about events over the weekend or in the evenings," another added.

Part of this is down to Starmer's history as a civil servant leading the Crown Prosecution Service, argued the former No. 10 official quoted above on his diary. "It's not that he doesn't care," this former official said. "He'll have wanted to share decision-making; he'll have wanted people to buy into decisions. And unfortunately politics ... is more dictatorial than that, and he never quite got that."

A close ally of Starmer acknowledged he is less driven by ideological debate than past prime ministers, but insisted that is still a refreshing trait in British politics. "It's unfair to call him incurious," this person said. "The questions he asks are more how, what and when, rather than why."

In recent years the U.K. has experienced another leader who campaigned with rare success but was unable to keep a team together or deliver a coherent agenda in office — Boris Johnson, who was finally ejected after three years in office when his Conservative Party colleagues ran out of patience after an unending stream of scandals and missteps.

His failure to get a story straight on how much he knew about sexual misconduct allegations involving one of his friends triggered the final wave of cabinet resignations that forced him out.

Starmer despised the way Johnson handled himself in office and promised to restore trust in politics when he took power in 2024. Now, like Johnson, he stands accused of misleading Parliament over how much he knew about a scandal that threatens his downfall.

"It stinks," one of the former officials said. "The man is as rotten as Boris. He just dresses it up differently."

This story has been updated with additional information.

[Tonitrus]

But there is apparently not enough dissent among the Labour MPs for a serious leadership challenge?  Is that because there isn't a visibly viable alternative candidate? 

(it had seemed like most of the possibles, e.g. Angela Rayner, have had to fade into the background for one reason or another or have been preemptively sidelined)

[Sheilbh]

But there is apparently not enough dissent among the Labour MPs for a serious leadership challenge?  Is that because there isn't a visibly viable alternative candidate? 

(it had seemed like most of the possibles, e.g. Angela Rayner, have had to fade into the background for one reason or another or have been preemptively sidelined)

I think basically, yes.

The candidate of the Labour right would probably be Wes Streeting - to my surprise he is doing a decent job at Health and is a good communicator. He's in a very marginal seat (came within 500 votes of losing to a Gaza Independent) and has ties to Peter Mandelson which could be exploited. The other plausible candidate is possibly Shabana Mahmood who I quite rate, but is toxic to the Labour membership as Home Secretary (so responsible for reducing immigration, which she's doing very effectively). I think there is also a mood in the party that the preference of the membership would be soft left not Labour right - after all that is what they thouht they were getting from Starmer who ran as the Corbynism without Corbyn, soft left candidate.

The soft left seems a bit more split to me. As you say Angela Rayner would be the leading candidate. Former Deputy Leader, very popular with the members - but she had to resign over her tax affairs and has still not been cleared by HMRC. A lot of Labour people don't care about that/think it's basically not a story - I think the wider public are less forgiving (at least until she is cleared by HMRC). I think there are also genuine questions over whether Rayner actually wants the leadership/to become PM. There's also talk about Ed Miliband - again I think there's a vast gap between Labour Party perceptions and the general public. Within Labour I think the view is that he since 2015 he's been on a journey (read: he had a podcast), is a good performer, has a clear vision; with the general public I think the sense is that they rejeced him in 2015 and all the reasons for rejecting him are still there. So I think soft left also lack a really viable candidate who they could unite around - the other point is that in policy terms the price for keeping Starmer around has been that the soft left cabinet members now largely set the agenda. Basically he's moved from outsourcing his politics to the Labour Right to outsourcing it to the soft left, so they have less to gain.

The hard left typically run a candidate - but given Starmer's purges of candidates and sitting MPs, I'm not sure they have enough people to nominate a candidate. In 2015 Jeremy Corbyn only got onto the leadership ballot because candidates from the Labour right "lent" him some nominees to "broaden the debate" - I suspect the Labour right will never make that mistake again (and the soft left will be working out their own candidate).

The Labour Party rules really matter here and they are very different from Tory party rules - in a way that I think journalists are only just starting to appreciate. For the Tories you can have a vote of no confidence to remove a leader and then have a leadership contest - so getting rid of a failing leader and who replaces them are kind of separated. In the Labour Party there is no mechanism to remove a sitting leader except by electing a new leader - so either he needs to resign or someone needs to stand and beat him.

And to the soft left unity point - that leadership election process is different. The Tory parliamentary party whittle down the leadership candidates to a final two who are presented to the membership to choose. That doesn't happen in the Labour Party - all candidates with enough nominations (plus the sitting leader) immediately go through to an election by the membership which is a ranked vote system. It's unpredictable and if you are splitting your side's vote that can cause problems.

I also slightly suspect that no-one who wants to be leader wants to take over before the elections in a couple of weeks when Labour are expected to lose shedloads of councillors and come third or fourth in Scotland and Wales (where Labour have been the party of government in the Senedd since it was established). And I'm actually not sure that there's time for a leadership election (as opposed to coronation) before the local and national elections. So instead of "Labour chaos" being the story over the local and national elections, I think there is a case for letting Starmer go on and effectively be the scapegoat/sin-eater for the Labour Party.

The other possible but currently impossible candidate is, of course, Andy Burnham - the most popular politician in the country. Who I'd back personally and (in the best way possible), I think arguably, Labour's Boris Johnson. As he is not an MP he cannot run. There is reporting that he's been doing a lot of outreach to the parliamentary Labour Party and building proper campaign infrastructure. There was also a report that he had a meeting with Angela Rayner over the weekend - if they could do some sort of deal I think that would possibly consolidate the soft left. But the big problem remains that Burnham isn't an MP - not insurmountable there are 2-3 seats in his patch that might have a by-election soon and he'd be a favourite in most of them I think, especially because I think he'd be understood as a sack Starmer candidate.

Total aside but one other very unlikely possibility would be that Labour's own rules play into an unexpected candidate. Again Labour Party rules are very different from the Tories on this (and they're different when Labour is in office v opposition). If a sitting PM resigns the leadership then the cabinet elects an acting leader from within the cabinet - not the deputy PM which is a made up job or Labour's Deputy Leader who currently does not serve in the cabinet. I think that could open the path to a surprise candidate - possibly someone a little more experienced, less identified with a faction who maybe won't serve for too long (until they do). For example, someone like Yvette Cooper current Foreign Secretary or maybe Defence Secretary John Healey. I think there's a route from "safe pair of hands" while we have a leadership contest to the leadership contest consolidating around them.

[Norgy]

If John Healy is related to Dennis Healy, I am all for it. 

[Sheilbh]

Sadly less eyebrow-hirsuite A bit more Voldemort-looking.

[Tonitrus]

I also slightly suspect that no-one who wants to be leader wants to take over before the elections in a couple of weeks when Labour are expected to lose shedloads of councillors and come third or fourth in Scotland and Wales (where Labour have been the party of government in the Senedd since it was established).

If Labour gets roundly smashed in the local elections, do you think Starmer would step down, or will he need to be pulled down kicking and screaming?

[garbon]

I also slightly suspect that no-one who wants to be leader wants to take over before the elections in a couple of weeks when Labour are expected to lose shedloads of councillors and come third or fourth in Scotland and Wales (where Labour have been the party of government in the Senedd since it was established).

If Labour gets roundly smashed in the local elections, do you think Starmer would step down, or will he need to be pulled down kicking and screaming?

So far he seems to constantly act like the latter. But who knows what concrete evidence might evince?

[Sheilbh]

Yeah I agree - so far there's no sign Starmer intends to step down (and today was another bad day for him - again Badenoch quite strong).

The reporting about Downing Street indicates it could happen though. From what's been reported Starmer has what all politicians need to have which is a degree of almost psychotic self-belief. By all accounts and despite everything he genuinely thinks he's doing a good job (again I slightly wonder if he thinks the "job" is administering a large organisation) and results will show over time, this is just standard mid-term blues and nnoe of the alternatives are anywhere near as good as him. On the other hand it is regularly reported just how much he hates politics and kind of holds politics (and, indeed, politicians) in contempt. So there's been a few points in his leadership where people close to him have said that at some point he might just quit because he doesn't like this world.

As I say I agree with garbon but it reminds me a little bit of May in 2019. She'd said she wasn't going to be leader at the next election, everyone knew she was going, she'd survived a premature no confidence vote so on a purely formal/rules-based approach she was safe for another year - but there were European elections coming up. Everyone knew it would be really bad for the Tories (and Labour) and that was largely priced in. In the end the Tories came fifth with 9% of the vote and I think the psychological shock of that forced her out very shortly afterwards.

I think there's something similar right now. Everyone agrees Starmer probably has to go - the public hate him, there's a lot of dissatisfaction in the party etc. The expectations for these election are really, really low and everyone is expecting very bad results. But I think the actual psychological shock of losing swathes of London, losing Scotland (when they were on course to win just 18 months ago - before Starmer became PM), losing Wales (for the first time since the Senedd was established) and also further losses in the "Red Wall" (talk that Sunderland might go to Reform) could make things move very, very quickly. I think there's like mentally preparing yourself for a bad outcome and then actually experiencing it - and the party's still in stage one. I'd add the big question for Labour is if the party doesn't represent the Red Wall, doesn't represent Wales and Scotland, doesn't represent London or diverse cities with lots of young graduates and doesn't represent areas with a large Muslim population either - who does the party still represent? Who is it for?

Lots of news on all this today (I enjoyed the Telegraph's Tim Stanley praising Emily Thornberry chairing the Foreign Affaris Select Committee as "what made this country great", "the right mix of authority and camp" as she encouraged more prudish member to drop the f-bomb This is very much in line with her leadership campaign in 2024 which had the vibe of "I've had a gin to calm my nerves but, in retrospect, thre was perhaps too many"). But I think one interesting point was Yvette Cooper (now Foreign Secretary, then Home Secretary) noting that she is "extremely concerned" at Number 10 trying to get Matthew Doyle an appointment in the FCDO and apparently telling the civil service not to tell the Foreign Secretary and that had it been raised it "would not have been an appropriate appointment". Feels like the first senior cabinet minister even hinting at criticism.

Just as a total aside on the Doyle thing - I am quite shocked at that. There are political appointments allowed to senior FCDO positions and they can be very, very useful. They are also very rare. So in the entire New Labour period they appointed Paul Boateng as Ambassador to South Africa and Valerie Amos as Ambassador to Australia. In the last 14 years of Tory rule there was one political appointee, Ed Llewellyn who was Cameron's chief of staff and was appointed as Ambassador to France, he was subsequently appointed Ambassador to Italy until earlier this year when he moved to an internal Director Generalship in the FCDO - by all accounts very good and quite a civil service political appointee (he'd previously worked for the European Commission under Chris Patten and for Paddy Ashdown in the High Representative's Office in Sarajevo - so always on that edge of the political and civil service). It slightly blows my mind that in less than 18 month Starmer had tried to make two political appointments (not even mentioning that both of them have since caused scandals because they were continued to associate with either known or alleged child sex offenders). It's very goodies for the boys.

Edit: Incidentally I mentioned Cooper - I've only just seen the clip doing the rounds of Ed Miliband where you can see the precise 1-2 minutes where he realises it's not worth burning through his own credibility for someone who's not going to be there in a few weeks. Basically the minute or so from about 6.30: