silverguide.site –

It was said of John Major, the Tory prime minister fatally damaged by party infighting, that he was “in office but not in power”. Sir Keir Starmer finds himself in a similar spot. His government is planning a king’s speech that contains ambitious proposals. But after Wednesday’s pomp and circumstance will come the real test: six days of Commons debate, then a vote that governments almost never lose. Almost. The last prime minister defeated on such an occasion was the Conservative Stanley Baldwin in 1924. He and his party were forced from office.

With ministers resigning and roughly 90 Labour MPs openly questioning Sir Keir’s leadership, this is no longer parliamentary theatre. There is now an open question as to whether he can command authority once the applause fades. Every amendment and rebellion will be scrutinised. A prime minister unable to command backbench loyalty struggles to define the political agenda. It is hard to see how Sir Keir intends to discipline factions psychologically when many MPs think he is electorally toxic.

Sir Keir might not care. His power no longer rests on political enthusiasm, but on control of Labour’s institutional machinery while he remains leader and prime minister. Sir Keir argued that he was going nowhere because no challenge had been triggered under the party rules. He shrugged off criticism such as that made by the departing Home Office minister Jess Phillips, who said he was to blame for a failure to bring in legislation that would stop children being able to take naked images of themselves with their phones. This suggests that Sir Keir’s authority is rooted in managing the party apparatus, not in competence, loyalty or personal appeal.

Being shameless is an underrated attribute in politics. Sir Keir says he takes responsibility for Labour’s disastrous election results – without accepting the consequences. His claim rings hollow after repeated U-turns, poor political judgments and mounting setbacks. By remaining in office despite his weakness, he can still intimidate opponents and shape any succession. Crucially, he retains influence over the party’s national executive committee. That allows him to block the route back to Westminster sought by Andy Burnham, the progressive Greater Manchester mayor, while deterring Wes Streeting, the Blairite health secretary, from forcing a contest that he might lose among Labour members, who are more instinctively leftwing than many MPs.

That is why so many are calling for Sir Keir to resign with honour – and oversee an orderly transition. The longer resignation timetable changes everything: Mr Burnham gains time to secure a parliamentary seat, the NEC is freed to act without pressure, and a genuinely open leadership race becomes possible. Mr Streeting would probably favour Sir Keir’s abrupt departure – before Mr Burnham, Labour’s most popular politician, could formally enter the contest. Two ministers who resigned – Miatta Fahnbulleh, who is backing Mr Burnham, and Mr Streeting’s ally Zubir Ahmed – both say Sir Keir’s leadership has become the obstacle to the government’s success.

In stable governments, nobody circulates letters insisting that “this is no time for a leadership contest”. Yet more than 100 Labour MPs, mainly from the 2024 intake, have done exactly that. Their defence of Sir Keir rests not on enthusiasm for Starmerism, but fear of what comes next. That may be enough to stop a leadership challenge. It may even be enough for Sir Keir to remain in Downing Street for some time. But the paradox for Sir Keir is that every act required to keep him in office reveals how much power he has already lost.