If a miserable Starmer is to survive, he must show leadership

There was little pride in evidence when the prime minister appeared at the launch of his “Pride in Place” initiative immediately after his bruising, humiliating experience in the Commons over the Peter Mandelson scandal. He apologised, saying he was “sorry for having believed Mandelson’s lies” and that he’s not going anywhere. He was robust, but not reassuring.

This is a miserable position for Sir Keir Starmer to find himself in. He desperately wants, and needs, to “cut through” to the public. But his message about bettering Britain, worthy as it is, is falling on deaf ears.

It is a fundamental problem. While the Westminster bubble is feverishly talking about his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney – or whether the PM will go, and who will replace him – the greater concern is that whatever he says, the rest of the country isn’t listening.

If Sir Keir is to survive, he must show leadership. But in the short term, things can only get worse. He is three weeks away from a likely defeat in the Gorton and Denton by-election, and nationwide elections in May could prove to be the worst for Labour in many decades. His critics say it is only a matter of when, rather than if, he is forced to stand down.

Some, including a cohort within his own party, think he should do so immediately; others, that it should be after the expected drubbing in the May elections – while a further group believe that the decision should wait until the inquiries by the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) and the police into Lord Mandelson’s behaviour, the leaking of sensitive information, and his appointment to Washington are complete. Few are keen to express confidence that Sir Keir will lead his party into the next general election.

The situation would be difficult at the best of times, but Sir Keir has plainly lost what was left of his authority over his backbenchers, and cannot count on their loyalty. Had they behaved as government backbenchers routinely do when faced with an opposition motion, Sir Keir would not have had to cede control over the disclosure of what can now be termed the “Mandelson files” by his cabinet secretary to the ISC.

But Labour MPs, with former deputy leader Angela Rayner at the head of the dissent, forced the prime minister to climb down. It was reminiscent of the Commons chaos seen during the Truss premiership and the Brexit years. It doesn’t inspire confidence in Labour’s longer-term capacity to carry through necessary changes to the social security system – or much else.

In fact, this loss of prime-ministerial power became apparent when the rebels within the parliamentary Labour Party vetoed Sir Keir’s welfare reforms last summer, and has been clear on similar issues since. There is no necessary reason to believe that he will easily regain the authority that has seeped away during a long succession of missteps and U-turns.

His less ideological critics in the party are calling for him to move Mr McSweeney out of No 10 and back into campaigning, where he has proved to be so brilliant. Sir Keir seems unwilling to be seen to be blaming his adviser, but he may have little choice if his more senior cabinet colleagues tell him he must do so. When prime-ministerial consiglieri such as Dominic Cummings and Alastair Campbell, among others, “became the story” in the past, they had to go. But if Mr McSweeney goes, it is surely curtains for Sir Keir.

If nothing else, the next few months will test the prime minister’s mettle as never before. He obviously has reserves of resilience, displayed during the long years it took him to drag his party back to electability. Those who wish to depose him should also consider life under the likely replacements – and, more to the point, what the public would think.

In truth, it is still not obvious that any of his ambitious successors would be able to unite the party, or to govern with much more success than Sir Keir has done, given the assertive mood of the back benches. Indeed, things could quite easily get worse if the party’s restless search for fresh leadership merely opens up more and more divisions – just as the Conservatives found in the tears that followed the Brexit referendum. It is a form of displacement activity when the economic challenges facing Britain are so formidable.

It seems implausible that a new prime minister would lead to such radical changes in policy, or the financial position, that they would transform Labour’s poll ratings. If the past decade has proved anything, it is that changing prime minister is never a panacea, and it would not be in the national interest to do so now. Sir Keir has always promised openness and transparency, and he must live up to that pledge now, with the hope that he will be vindicated as the signs of economic revival start to grow more tangible.