Labour’s nuclear option may be its only one

 Removing a prime minister is the nuclear option, especially for Labour, but Keir Starmer has given his party few alternatives.

So severe have been his failings as a party leader and premier that leaving him in place is fraught with more dangers than removing him would be.

True, he won a general election, and did so handsomely. But given the state of the Conservatives in 2024 and their record in government, it’s hard to imagine that any other Labour leader would have fared worse. Starmer led Labour to victory by saying as little as possible and keeping his head down, not by the promotion of an inspiring or radical alternative agenda.

Since the breaking of the new dawn nearly two years ago, he has proved beyond doubt to be wholly unsuited to the role. This is not a controversial or even challengeable thing to say: his MPs and ministerial colleagues recognise that he is simply not cut out for politics.

He hardly seems interested in it, let alone adept in its art. He is a lawyer who decided, late in life, that he fancied doing something else before retirement. Various serendipitous events propelled him to the top of the party and to Downing Street, but that does not speak highly of him personally nor of the political processes in what was, at the time, a largely dysfunctional Labour Party.

The general supposition is that while there is no obvious candidate to replace him, he may be safe from a challenge, à la Harold Wilson in 1969.

Kemi Badenoch, Nigel Farage and Zack Polanski must be praying that this argument prevails in the Labour ranks, as the prospect of going into battle with Keir Starmer in 2028 or 2029 will hold no fears for any of them.

But, for Labour, the decision whether to oust Starmer is not just about what will give the party the greatest electoral advantage. The party is lacking in strategy, decisiveness and conviction, none of which he has displayed.

He has become a liability to the Labour cause. That alone should be justification enough to motivate his cabinet to move against him, even if the ultimate beneficiary of his departure is currently unclear.

Perhaps what is needed is another James Purnell-type sacrifice, for a high-profile minister to announce, at the stroke of 10 on the evening of May 7, that he or she has had enough of Starmer’s leadership and publicly demand a fresh contest to identify a successor. The spoils of war might not fall automatically at the feet of such a courageous individual, but they would at least have done more to save their party from obliteration than any amount of off-the-record moaning has done so far.

Rayner? Streeting? Miliband? Burnham? The choice of candidate doesn’t, for now, look inspiring. And that remains Starmer’s greatest chance of survival. But it is only when a contest is launched that we will see who the serious candidates are. There may be some surprising hats thrown in that ring after it kicks off, perhaps belonging to MPs whose talents and qualifications have been overlooked so far.

The only certainty is that change is necessary. Without it, Labour’s fate is sealed. Those who do nothing can hardly claim they weren’t warned.