Starmer - should he stay or should he go? What difference would it make either way?

[IwantToRetire]

Four ministers resign over Starmer leadership as Lammy says no-one has support to stand against PM
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c1e2n923v1lt

More than 100 Labour MPs have signed a statement urging Sir Keir Starmer not to stand down
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/starmer-resign-cabinet-live-updates-b2974932.html

More than 100 Labour MPs sign statement against Starmer leadership challenge
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/may/12/labour-mps-sign-statement-against-starmer-leadership-challenge

I dont have an opinion on this, but wondered what others think.

But if the situation leads to a General Election being called, then I would be worried given recent council election results.

There is no reason to call a GE as we vote for a party, not a leader, and there is no way Labour will do that until they have to in two years (no party would).

They might change leaders. From a GC perspective, I would probably prefer Streeting, Burnham has been deliberately woolly on the trans issue, his statement on FWS win was a masterclass in equivocation, which just makes me think he will throw women under the bus to appease the left and the unions as required. Rainer is far too TWAW for me to even seriously consider.

And Dinosaur Dave would be a disaster.

There is no reason to call a GE as we vote for a party, not a leader,

I suppose that is a reaction to what seems like the Labour Party falling apart. And towards the end of the Tory Government they just kep swapping leaders, when the problem was the party.

For sure, but there is zero chance they would call an election now, when they have just had a drubbing at the polls. That would be an insane move, and they won't do it. It's just wishful thinking from the other parties (and fairly lazy journalism) IMO

They were voted in to govern for 5 years, and they need to sort their shit out and get on with doing that.

I kind of wish they wouldn't chop and change PMs so much. It just puts more energy into internal politics and less on finding the right way forward for the country. There's a lot of general discontent with the world that gets taken out on whatever party is in government.

From a feminist perspective, the longer they sit still in roles the more chance to pin them down to action. You can bet if there's a new PM everything we're waiting for with guidance etc will get delayed further while they decide the new team and the new team get brought up to speed, and that's even without a new team being directly anti women's rights.

I think he should stay. I don't think a change is n leadership will help at this stage. They should pick someone else to go I to the next general but lection but that should be a thought out considered choice not a kneejerk reaction.

I honesty don't know whether he should resign or not. But the Labour party need to get their act together one way or another and end this fiasco quickly.

I guess I must still feel some residual loyalty towards them as I'm utterly embarrassed by them today.

As for Andy Burnham - they rejected him twice when he stood to be party leader wo why they suddenly think he's their saviour is beyond me. I believe he also described the Supreme Court decision as 'confusing' last year.

It'll be like Trump. Everyone will wander around going OMFG, this shouldn't be happening. Yet no one will actually do anything, in part because the other options are equally crap. And it will all just bumble along.

I'm a little worried about Starmer stamping his feet, and calling a GE out of spite if they really force him out. Though that would be a long shot, even for him.

His bosses won't let him call a GE as they know that would be the end. More likely to ban general elections going forward.

Labour will continue to lose voters whilst Starmer is at the helm so yes he should go.

My preference for the next leader would be Wes as the best of a bad bunch.

I do think he should go. He's shown his decision making and sense of judgement is considerably poorer than should be expected from someone in his position.
I don't know who should be the Labour leader but there must be SOME level headed individuals who would do a far better job.

Cometh the hour, cometh the username, IwantToRetire😄
From outside the UK, it looks like a very bad time to be switching leaders, and he's not that bad is he? Not bad as in evil bad.
If the UK changes PM again, it will have had more churn than Italy, where the current PM has been in place since 2022.

The comment from the MP interviewed on tv yesterday nailed it. He has no ability or even apparent interest in communicating with the country, only with other members of the party. But I can't see any other member of the Labour party doing any better or being interested in removing the policies they didn't dare put in the manifesto and that large groups of the electorate now hate them for.

This is going to finish Labour as a party. But in their current form, good riddance. What we'll end up with is two coalitions, you'll have a choice between a rock and a hard place, and their time in power will just be non stop inward focus trying to hold a coalition together for more than five minutes, because none of them are going to be easy partners.

I agree there is probably no great appetite in Labour for an election right now. Of course there isn’t. Parties usually want to hang on. But “they were voted in for five years” is not quite right. They were given a maximum Parliament, not a guaranteed five-year tenancy. General elections can be called early, and historically they often are when a PM wants legitimacy, authority, or a reset.

Eden became PM in 1955 and called an election almost immediately to secure his own mandate. Wilson went early in 1966 to turn a tiny majority into a workable one. Heath went early in February 1974 asking “Who governs Britain?” Wilson went again in October 1974 to get a better mandate. May went early in 2017 after taking over from Cameron because she wanted her own Brexit mandate. Johnson went early in 2019 to break the deadlock and get authority for his programme.

So no, it would not be constitutionally required. But politically, I think they probably will have to do it once they get a new leader. After a terrible local election result for the incumbent government, replacing the PM and then just carrying on as if nothing has happened would leave them with almost no legitimacy at all.

A new leader would be trying to say “this is a new government, with a new programme, and a new direction.” At that point they need the country’s permission, not just the permission of Labour MPs and party members. Otherwise it looks like an internal party stitch-up to keep hold of power.

The danger for Labour is that staying put can look less like responsible government and more like squatting in office until eviction day. Brown and Sunak both suffered from that problem. They were legally entitled to govern, but politically they never fully escaped the lack-of-mandate charge.

So I am not saying Labour would want an election. They obviously wouldn’t. But if Starmer goes after such a brutal rejection at the polls, I think the next leader may have very little choice. Sometimes going early is not wishful thinking. It is damage limitation. Staying when the public has clearly turned against you can poison the party brand for years.

OR - a new PM sees that we have a 6 party system now and goes to the polls with the idea of, elect me again, I will push through proportional representation and we have a second GE right away afterwards.

Thats my preferred outcome.

Doubt it will make any difference since all the politicians of whatever persuasion are managerialist technocrats who don't understand that having a process and following a plan do not necessarily work (and mostly don't).

Interesting thought.

But part of me thinks that after this (ie Labour weren't exactly winners at the last election) that Labour or Labour MPs should do what Tory MPs did. Those who were basically making the Tories a failing Government eg ERG all left and went to Reform as an explicit right wing group which they just didn't have the guts to do.

And Labour which now still has elements of old left, Blairites and the not quite sures should part companies.

The those who consider themselves left could have a left vote without having to take on the Green nonsense.

And those who aren't so left could have their middle of the road managerial party.

Just need the electoral system to get up to date and have PR.

But I think the last days of the Tory Government and this althought still early days of the Labour Government show that they dont work where there are such distinct political groupings in one party. As it all goes on behind closed doors.

Better to have it out in the open with smaller groups saying this is our sticking point in public.

Has Phillipson declared herself loyal to Starmer?

Until this is resolved one way or another, Starmer's only focus will be on appeasing his party and ministers and saving his own skin. The electorate may as well not exist.

So what's the point of him being there now, he's a total lame duck PM. At least with another leader there will be (hopefully) some gumption to show they can act swiftly and decisively, not just endlessly whine and moan and blame other people.

All this MN bleating on about "oh no too much change, leave him alone, better than changing again", it's the least worst thing they can summon up to say about him. Again, hardly a ringing endorsement of him as a PM.

I think he needs to go in the next few months. Its almost impossible to turn this level of public hostility around without pulling something dramatic out of the bag. And of course, politics being as divisive as it is, what would please some would alienate others, so I don't actually know what it could be.
I think Labour clearly need a change of approach. But if this comes with Starmer at the helm he will be criticised some more for inconsistency/not having done it sooner/weakness/not being genuine.
So better a new leader bringing change with them.

There are now a list of 100 MPs who have shown themselves to understand nothing about how to keep a Labour government in power. They are responsible for gifting influence to the right wing, just the same as what happened to Corbyn. Pathetic. There is nothing wrong with Starmer and I just despair at this great big fuss about nothing. The country has become ungovernable and no, it doesn't matter who is in charge anymore.

I am proud of Starmer for not caving in to this nonsense. I'm starting to think he is a true patriot. He has to stay or this country is fucked because all that comes of it is the same thing happening to the next one, and the next one, because enough people on one side hate the other to cause complete chaos for the chance to get their side in charge. Just fuck off please! We need stability! He has 600 seats, and no sensible challenger! Get over yourselves Labour!

I have some sad news for you. Streeting is meeting Starmer tomorrow morning where they will discuss the timetable for Starmer resigning in an orderly fashion and giving enough room for Burnham to come in as an MP prior. It means that Starmer will be announcing his resignation very soon. the country cannot manage with a zombie Prime Minister, which is what we have after the damage of the last four days, but especially the damage of the local elections which was caused by Starmer‘s actions.