The Labour Party leadership question is very hard to avoid. The news is dominated by it. The government is being incapacitated by it. We have the farce of the King's Speech being presented today by a government that may not exist by the end of the week. And all the while, Starmer clings on, like a limpet desperate for its own survival, whatever the cost to anyone else.
I have already posted two polls on this blog this morning, seeking your opinion on the question of the day, which is whether Keir Starmer will survive and who will replace him if he goes.
Those questions are, of course, relevant, but there are deeper questions to ask, which may be just as important, and they are why is he clinging on, why is Wes Streeting refusing to raise a challenge against him, and what the consequences might be if no one succeeds in eventually challenging Starmer for the premiership.
Is there a possibility, in other words, that despite the fact that he is obviously a failed prime minister in the eyes of many in the Labour Party and in the wider country, and his continued presence in Number 10 seemingly guarantees right now that Labour will perform disastrously at the next general election, that he will stay in office?
To answer that question, we need to stand back a little. As everyone now knows, Starmer became leader of the Labour Party six years ago in a deeply underhanded fashion, claiming to be the genuine successor to Jeremy Corbyn and offering ten pledges to the Labour Party membership, which suggested he would lead a genuinely left-wing government.
He then not only reneged on all those pledges but expelled very large numbers of those who had joined the party because of Jeremy Corbyn. At the same time, a campaign began to take complete control of the candidate selection process in Labour, whilst purging the officers of many local constituency Labour parties to ensure that Sytarmer's apparent will was done.
The consequence was that we ended up with the well-to-the-right-of-centre, completely gutted Labour Party that I have, this week, described as the party of bankers, not workers, and which is utterly disinterested in all those causes that once characterised everything that Labour stood for, from working people and their rights, to the protection of all those with the misfortune to not have an income through no fault of their own through the provision of a social safety net, and the provision of essential services ensuring quality of life including universal free education and universal free healthcare.
So, Labour is not what it used to be. But there is one misrepresentation in this narrative that I need to correct. My suggestion, so far, has been that this was achieved through Keir Starmer's agenda, and I am far from alone in thinking that Keir Starmer had no such agenda.
Morgan McSweeney had an agenda, and we now know that Peter Mandelson was the person who appeared to pull the strings there.
We know that Labour Together had an agenda, and we know that Peter Mandelson pulled the strings there as well, with Josh Simons appearing to be as much his agent as Morgan McSweeney ever was.
Four things characterised that agenda. They were, and are:
- Support for the interests of the City of London.
- Support for the interests of the wealthy sponsors of Labour.
- The promotion of Zionism, opposition to which was interpreted as antisemitism.
- A visceral hatred of anything left of centre.
The playbook that permitted the promotion of these themes came straight from the far-left infiltration of Labour in the 1980s. Their entryism was copied. They, of course, ran up against Kinnock and Mandelson at that time, and now Mandelson has used the lessons learned then to achieve his goal of the recreation of Labour as a right-wing, pro-Zionist political party with the objective of removing the chance of left-wing representation from those desiring it in the UK Parliament, assuming the perpetuation of a two-party-dominated political system in the UK.
You can quibble with this analysis. You can say that a deeper interpretation is required. But what I suggest is that you cannot argue that this did not happen, because it appears that Mandelson and McSweeney chose Starmer as their convenient front man for the campaign that they sought to promote, and nothing has changed ever since. He is still there, and the agenda is still in place. As far as they are concerned, nothing has changed.
Other things have, of course, though. The two-party political system on which they based their assumption of Labour power is collapsing all around them, because whilst they won the battle within Labour, by defeating through alienation the hearts and minds of those who had thought something altogether better was possible, they ignored another possibility: that the people might decide to take their votes elsewhere, as they have most obviously done. That was a major miscalculation on their part.
They made one other miscalculation, and that was that they presumed that the nodding donkeys whom they nominated as Parliamentary Labour Party candidates in the 2024 election would forever remain loyal to those who had given them their ticket to Westminster. Some of them do, however, now realise that what they have been presented with is a short-term, one-way ticket to their next employment, the chance of securing which might actually be harmed by their having been an MP. As a result, some of them have been willing to challenge Starmer and the hierarchy of power that put them in place, although very obviously not enough as yet, because Starmer is still there.
So, why is he still there?
Firstly, because the Starmer machine has been able to block the return of Andy Burnham, who, in truth, is an alternative face for Labour only a little more attractive to the country at large than Starmer has been, because he too is part of the Blair inheritance that was, again, in large part created by Mandelson.
And then there is Wes Streeting, who may only have arrived in Parliament in 2015, but is a very obvious creation from the same mould, so deeply does he share the views of the Mandelson axis, to the extent that working out what Streeting might think on any issue is as difficult as the same exercise ever is with Keir Starmer. The only role that Wes Streeting has in this fiasco is as a replacement for Starmer to perpetuate the Mandelson–McSweeney plan; but precisely because he is the continuity candidate, he cannot be seen as the person who will trigger the leadership election, and for that reason has not done so. He, like Starmer, has learned to read between the lines and do what is expected of him.
Why else is there no leadership election? Angela Rayner knows she has no chance at present, and probably not ever. She has deeply tarnished her brand.
Ed Miliband has, as yet, not reached the point of desperation with Starmer where he is willing to put himself forward in opposition to the Mandelson camp and go for a job which he is genuinely reluctant to do, but of which he is capable.
As far as I can see, there is no one else in play. The result is an impasse, and for now that is exactly what the Mandelson and McSweeney camp will be happy with. No one knows how to be rid of Starmer as yet, and within Labour and the country as a whole, given the impediment that obviously exists to Andy Burnham getting a run at the Labour leadership, this suits them very well.
Do not doubt that they will also engineer a campaign to prevent Burnham from returning to Parliament. And then they will sit back and rely on Macmillan's old adage that "Events, dear boy, events" will deliver, and sufficient of them will ensue that Starmer survives his term until 2029, by when they think they will have incapacitated the Greens through a programme of deliberate vilification, and against all the odds Labour will be re-elected.
Their inspiration for thinking so is, rather oddly, to be found in Scotland. Two years ago, good money would have said that there was no chance that John Swinney would now be First Minister of the Scottish Government, but he is, and with a commanding lead over all other parties. People can be persuaded of the status quo, after all, and what matters to the Mandelson–McSweeney alliance, and their powerful backers, is that the status quo built around the four pillars I have outlined be maintained.
In that case, their instruction to Starmer is to sit this out, which is precisely what he is doing; because so far it looks as though the Parliamentary Labour Party that they created does not have the courage to replace him, and they think that the threat from Burnham, who is not so far removed from their objectives in any event, can be contained.
What is the result? It is that these people will impose upon this country a government that no one wants, led by a prime minister who is universally loathed, but whose survival will, they think, permit a return to office of a Labour Party that is fundamentally pro-finance and pro-Zionist in 2029, against all the odds, because by then they will, they think, have had the opportunity to discredit both the Greens and Reform, and no one now takes the Conservatives seriously.
All of this is, of course, speculation, but the whole of politics is speculation, and it seems to me to be supported by what we know about what has happened in the last six years, what is happening now, and what is apparent from the agenda, such as it is, that Starmer has advanced whilst in office and which has been supported by key lobby groups such as Labour Together.
That the situation I am describing represents an attempt to destroy democracy in the UK is of no concern to those promoting this agenda. They have no concern for democracy or the will of the people of this country. All that they are worried about is that their view prevails. That, by proxy, is all Starmer is worrying about as well.
We do, as a result, need to worry. The indifference and cowardice of the Parliamentary Labour Party may yet deliver them just what Mandelson and McSweeney want, which is a very bleak future for us all.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Are you saying that Starmer promotes Zionism because the Jews are really in control of government?
No
I said Statmer promotes Zionism
I said nothing about Jews
The two are not the same
The word ‘Jew’ is not mentioned at all in the post. What a response?
A fair number of Jews do however have problems with Zionism – which is mentioned the post.
I am not antisemitic. I have problem with with some forms of Zionism and the government of Israel.
Dear Richard
My ‘what a response’ remark was aimed at Ali because it seemed to be on a well trodden path – not you at all. ‘Sorry for not writing more clearly on this occasion.
I understood that
Well said.
Starmer’s deepfake Corbynism – read Paul Holden’s ‘The Fraud’ (2025).
Starmer’s Zionism – read Peter Oborne’s ‘Complicit – Britain’s Role in the Destruction of Gaza’ (2025).
One way I look at it is that in the Labour party, Britain has its equivalent of the American Democrat party – a party of no new ideas, that constrains and suffocates progressive ideas until they are given up on or people get so frustrated that shittier ideas become more attractive and the chaos enables more plundering to take place.
The Labour party – like the U.S. Democrats – is therefore like a demonic air traffic control putting progressive ideas (the planes) into a never ending holding pattern but which will never be allowed to land with the hope that they just fall from the sky and go away. It is designed to destroy hope and uphold the grip of capital on state power (or if you like, money).
Much to agree with
The influence of Tony Blair and his Institute should be thrown into the mix. These people are addicted to power and consider themselves exceptional and democracy an impediment to their desires.
‘I am describing…. an attempt to destroy democracy in the UK'<p>
Yes Richard. Not all that long ago – that would have seemed a ridiculously over the top conspiracy theory<p>
But now – as you suggest , it might be worse than that . I am beginning to think that UK democracy is sort of a shadow puppet show , with the security services, infiltrated by CIA / Mossad making sure that only ‘vetted’ politicians and political parties participate.<p>
We glimpsed this when we were reminded that politicians and diplomats (Mandelson) have to be ‘vetted’. And also when Osborne said Corbyn would never have got ‘security clearance’ to be PM<p>
The whole illegally funded Labour Together operation ( described by Paul Holden ) to take over Labour, and spy on and threaten journalists fits. John McDonnel is seeking a full inquiry on all this – he wont get it.<p>
Then there is Starmer’s apparent ‘membership’ of far left groups as a student, and later membership of the CIA front Trilateral Commission when he was a shadow minister.<p>
The shadowy power structure is clearly permeating the BBC . Even this morning Nick Robinson after interviewing someone about Eurovision pro- Israeli vote-rigging, launched into his own extraordinary polemic – saying ‘wasn’t it reasonable after the slaughter of Jews on October 7th 2023 that they would try and counteract what they see as antisemitism across Europe..'<p>
Given that Mandelson and McSweeney (and many others in the Labour Party) are so obviously right of centre, I wonder why they didn’t join the Conservative party from the off. They would have been at home there.
I am of the view that Starmer’s puppet masters will do everything necessary to keep him as PM…..until his has outlived his use to them. What they really fear is another Corbyn-like figure (by which I simply mean one who they cannot control) and so they will set out to destroy anyone who could challenge their project. Both Paul Holden and Peter Oborne have documented this in their respective books The Fraud and Complicit. It is now clear that they are using the same tactics against Polanski. Look at the latest confected scandal about his possible underpayment of council tax. The press articles, including the comments supposedly attributable to Dan Niedle, all stretch but just about stay within the boundaries of libel law by only suggesting he MAY have not paid the correct council tax. This seems to me to be a misleading and intentionally selective technique straight out of the “no smoke without fire” playbook. Nowhere is there found to be a reference to paras 8.1.2 and 8.2.2 (and any attempt to address the questions raised therein) of the current Valuation Office guidance on council tax or the relevant regulations. It is a blatant attempt to smear without actually slandering him. However it does show that some people are going to extraordinary efforts to trawl through the minutiae of his life in order to discredit him. I do not consider Polanski to be a “populist” – that conflates popularity with populism – but I do see the same tactics being employed against him as were used against Corbyn. This tells me that the puppet masters are scared. My response (to borrow from Pete Townsend): we won’t get fooled again. The Greens, however, must buckle up for a bumpy ride.
I can never forget that Dan Neidle was a leading lawyer in a major firm of London lawyers dedicated to tax minimisation who always vehemently opposed all moves for tax justice.
Richard,
I should have also referred to para 8.2.5 of the guidance. Sorry for the omission!
He will absolutely survive.
Whatever is really afoot, the powers that are really running things will not let him go.
The way things are going, the meltdown that is coming and the lack of addressing it tells it’s own story.
I ask myself – what are they getting out of it? Same for the people supporting Starmer , who have come to his defence?
You have come to the same conclusion that I have, namely, Starmer will do as he is told. He is not a free agent. He is the front man for Mandelson, Blair and ultimately, Zionist billionaire, Larry Ellison.
Thank you, Richard.
I was planning to e-mail Mike and you privately, but this post and your point about support for the City allow me to flag something from yesterday afternoon.
The Times’ Patrick Maguire highlighted Chuka Umunna walking along Downing Street as the media scrummed. Some nerds picked up the tweet, but not the significance.
Umunna has worked for JP Morgan since 2020. One could say he always did, even as a backbencher.
About 18 months ago, a friend who works for a leading insurer and asset manager told me about Umunna visiting them. Umunna implied that if the firm wanted anything, it should go through JP Morgan. It was also implied that Wall Street, not the City, has the ear of the government. I have experience of that, especially Goldman Sachs, going back two decades.
If this carries on, this country will never recover.
This morning, Paul Johnson was interviewed by BBC Breakfast and kept referring to financial institutions lending the government money. Johnson was at the Institute of Fiscal Studies. About 20 years ago, I met one of the IFS’s founders, Nils Taube, a stockbroker. His firm was a client of my bank employer. I don’t consider the IFS to be an impartial observer. The IFS is based in Bloomsbury, but may as well be at Tufton Street.
As I say above, If this carries on, this country will never recover.
Agreed
And Dimon is issuing threats right now
Of course the current situation has not suddenly materialised although it can be argued that it has recently become a lot worse. I would suggest that the decline of this country started in the early 1970s. The situation of ordinary citizens has largely deteriorated since the 1960s although in many ways materially better. I suspect that the younger generation are not going to have the relatively comfortable existence that I, as an octogenarian, have enjoyed.