The prevailing atmosphere within parliamentary Labour members these days adheres to a Shakespearean principle. It declares that the scale of any misfortune is only gauged relative to yet-to-come catastrophes. As the Bard lets the banished son of the sightless nobleman declare in King Lear: “The most terrible is not, as long as we can say ‘this represents the lowest point’.”
A Succession of Worsening Problems
As per this principle, there is no opinion poll so gloomy about the government that cannot be coming after another more depressing; no economic projection so bad that the Treasury won't exacerbate it with contradictory signals about levies; no doubts about Keir Starmer that won't be heightened via hostile communications concerning a bid for power.
Immigration Rules Declaration
Against this backdrop, the latest revelation of strategies intending to limit the number of refugees granted entry to Britain, modelled on an infamously harsh Scandinavian model, was received less badly by representatives than anticipated. There emerged flashes of backbench anger yet no wildfire of opposition.
Hardening immigration policies is not Labour's comfort zone, yet the existing framework is evidently broken and voters are angry. Most MPs grasp the reasoning that open-mindedness and intercommunal harmony are easier to cultivate if assurance exists that the nation's borders are safely guarded.
Growing Discontent
Reserved MP positions may also represent ominous. MPs have learned that each issue is discussable alongside a purposeless head with flexible principles. Current proclamations might be reversed shortly. There is no need to rush over the top when victories can be won by attrition.
A frequent grievance is that Starmer is scarcely operating the cabinet at all, following the transfer of strategic choices to his chief of staff. That isn't to say the leader is without administrative energy, he simply favors not to mediate among agency disagreements or engage in extended discussions.
Governing Approach
The Prime Minister entered organized political activity during later professional life, originally joining the legislature during his early fifties. He has no feel about movement history – the body of former discussions, initiatives, personalities and traditional touchstones that bind a head to the larger group and its sense of common objective.
His innermost beliefs remain unknown including to ministers. According to an experienced Labour figure puts it: “Keir is highly unusual in his role by creating the perception that his private opinions remain personal matters.”
Political Consequences
The image presented representing the leader in last year's election campaign has also not delivered its purported benefits: administrative capability leading to national renewal. If Britain still had a two-party system, the recollection of how bad things were with the previous government may continue tolerance for the party.
This foreshadows a devastating defeat for party representatives in municipal and devolved elections in the coming spring. It shall represent an instance of significant risk for the leader, provided he remains through that period.
Succession Concerns
Absent in these calculations exists consensus regarding the person of a replacement and how their programme could vary with existing administration plans. This flaw regarding changeover preparations is cited by supporters of the leader among numerous justifications to remain with the existing prime minister.
While restive MPs could hesitate regarding those warnings, they also hear in them the familiar, empty ringing of low ambition that creates despondency at the status quo. It represents the noise of inability to define Starmerism as anything more than a series of strategies for clinging on.
Ending Reflections
It proves difficult to summon loyalty for such an objective. And most Labour MPs have tried. They have adhered to the party line, defended it on the doorstep, heeded instructions, trusted promises that their concerns were heard.
Regicide contains considerable peril, but is it riskier versus acting as if that the current ruler possesses solutions to big questions that remain unmentioned? The Shakespearean principle invites caution regarding the replacement of a current head of government. The alternative could always be worse.
“The heaviness of this troubled period we have to accept; State true sentiments, instead of proper declarations.”
