For information, 60 million people did not vote for the Labour Party with Sir Keir Starmer as leader.
The Labour Party won with 33.7% of the total votes cast. Also remember that many of those eligible to vote did not do so.
So the country did not overwhelmingly support Starmer's Labour Party. Quite a lot of those votes were in protest at the Tories' record.
Starmer may not do so badly on the International stage but if he can't control his backbenchers and make the much needed welfare reform changes and bowed to them and ditched the 2 child UC benefit cap when it was very popular with the voting public who wished to keep it, why should he keep his position?
Then on top of that he appoints untrustworthy people like Mandelson, whilst ignoring all the warnings given to him. And then blames and fires others for his poor decisions.
Such inept behaviour from a former human rights lawyer! But then again he has forgotten his past career and now overlooks human rights and international law abuses and let's them go unchallenged when it suits him.
This is why he should be considering his position.
He has no backbone. The public sees that and his own backbenchers sees that.
So unless he has a total personality change and finds some charisma from somewhere he should be gone.
However, the Labour Party backbenchers seem to be very keen on self destructing if they think the public will vote for a more left leaning Party fronted by the likes of Ed Miliband or Angela Rayner! Even Andy Burnham will not change their fortunes if he won't take serious steps to reform welfare and align the numbers eligible to receive it with the European average, which is way, way lower than the in the UK.