This is in the FT this morning, with regard to the now 128 (or more) Labour MPs who are threatening to vote against Labour over cuts to disability and other benefits:
So, the logic is that Starmer is over according to the Labour whips, and so the country must go to the polls and return Farage, which I have always assumed is what Starmer really wants. That is the threat here.
What the whips are saying is that if Starmer is beaten, he will not resign as Labour leader, as he should, but will try to call a general election.
But, actually, he does not have the right to do that.
The motion opposing the government is not on a confidence issue.
Nor is it actually challenging the policy; it is simply asking that it be deferred.
And Labour can still, very obviously, command a majority in the House on a confidence issue, meaning that there can be no justification for a general election.
So, this suggestion that there will be a general election is absurd. The King has no right to grant one to a party that can command the confidence of the House, but which has blundered on an issue.
But that does not mean that Keir Starmer's government might not fall, because that is entirely possible.
All it means is that Starmer might be consigned to political oblivion. There will be no tears about that.
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!
While there are moral and ethical reasons why a GE should not be called, is there, actually, anything to prevent Starmer doing so because he wants to? Given that he has shown himself to be neither moral nor ethical?
He cannot call one until he has lost a confidence motion
This is not a confidence motion
I think it’s a little more complicated.
If the government loses a confidence vote then it has to resign and call a general election. That is a convention, not law. The British constitution runs on conventions.
This is what the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 says (before accession of Charles to the throne):
“2 Revival of prerogative powers to dissolve Parliament and to call a new Parliament
(1) The powers relating to the dissolution of Parliament and the calling of a new Parliament that were exercisable by virtue of Her Majesty’s prerogative immediately before the commencement of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 are exercisable again, as if the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 had never been enacted.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the powers relating to the calling of a new Parliament include powers to order the issue of—
(a) writs of summons to attend the House of Lords, and
(b) writs for parliamentary elections (see rule 3 in Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983).”
By convention – no law involved – prerogative powers of the monarch are mostly exercised by the government. Therefore Starmer, like any PM, is entitled to advise the monarch to prorogue and dissolve parliament at any time, no reason required.
The House of Commons Library paper CBP-9384 says of prerogative powers:
“The royal prerogative is the “residual power inherent in the Sovereign, and now exercised mostly on the advice of the Prime Minister and Ministers of the Crown”. These powers do not require parliamentary authority, although they can be complemented by statute. Prerogative powers can be exercised by:
• the King acting alone (for example, the appointment of a Prime Minister and conferral of certain honours)
• the King on the advice of Ministers (prorogation of Parliament, certain public appointments)
• Ministers of the Crown (treaties and foreign affairs), or
• the King in Council (a meeting of the Privy Council at which the King is
present)
The precise scope of prerogative powers can be difficult to determine.”
The latest version takes 303 pages to demonstrate why the British constitution is a mess. I read an earlier version some time ago; much of it consists of which flunkey sends messages to another. But later in the document, it says that most prerogative powers are outside the scope of judicial review. And on page 109, we find the statement that “… Prime Minister, by virtue of
commanding the confidence of the House of Commons, to advise the Sovereign to dissolve Parliament at a time of their choosing or after having lost a designated or explicit vote of confidence in the Commons.
Note the critical word “or”. Starmer can call an election at any time. Whether he would be wise to do so, or even threaten to do so, is not mentioned.
I question whether he could actually do so…
In our construction we do not know
“So, the logic is that Starmer is over according to the Labour whips, and so the country must go to the polls and return Farage, which I have always assumed is what Starmer really wants.”
Why would Starmer want Farage in office???? I just don’t get it!
He’s moved so far right, why not?
It’s not only Starmer. He and the whole establishment (political, media etc) would much prefer to have Farage as PM than a possible alternative which would’ve been only slightly to the left of where Labour is now (so still centre, somewhere where Blair was). That’s why you see Farage everywhere now – despite how ridiculous everything he says is. To think that I’ve voted for this man to become Labour leader – running now to do my daily dose of self-flagellation:).
Because hes been bought off by murdoch and has done nothing but move right, softening the ground for farage. A useful idiot perse.
Its just like Biden blatantly wanting drumpf to win the US election last year. Biden was incredibly giddy since the election result and even said “welcome back home” on inauguration day. He moved the Dems further right, refused to keep his promise not to run for reelection and only dropped out when it was way too late, denying the Dems a primary. Moreover, he did nothing to stop the blatantly illegal activities of the gop irt Votes not being counted, vote dropbox burning by the Gop’s footsoldiers and not replacing an AG who deliberately slow walked any investigation into the Jan 6, 2025 Insurrection. Lets not forget his siding with, finding avenues to go round Congress to aid Netanyahu’s War Crimes when he refused to ignore the Senate Parliamentarian on issues such as finding a carve-out for the protection of voting rights.
He could do exactly what Boris Johnson did. Prorogue parliament illegally. That power might be held by the monarch but we know now that the monarch does not have the power to stop a mad prime minister. Political mechanisms in west minister and Whitehall have stopped mad kings. Mad prime ministers? I am not convinced. And that is the danger, that what do we do when a prime minister decides he is a king?
Prorogue for what reason?
Mad Prime Minister?
The other power Labour MPs have, but it takes time, is via the PLP, to depose him as leader. They did it to Corbyn after all. But that wouldn’t stop him calling for a dissolution because he would still be PM until that happened.
But I can’t see why McTeam would call an election that they would lose.
I think the McTeam battle has been primarily for the soul of the Labour Party because it presented a risk (under Corbyn and its 600k members if it got into government) to the hegemony of their backers and funders.
Those backers can’t control Reform or the Tories at the moment so all their bets are on Starmer or a Starmer clone. They can only change the leader of the party via the PLP (and conference?) with the support of Labour MPs, most of whom used to be suborned by LFI, and certain Israel and neoliberal supporting donors. I think they no longer feel they (McTeam) have control of enough Labour MPs.
I wonder which Labour MP could get 80+ PLP nominations, AND then win a leadership election, AND of course get the essential pre-approval any successful candidate would need from the Board of Deputies and the Jewish Chronicle (who aren’t giving Starmer much support in this weeks edition, because they say the UK isn’t doing enough to support Israel against Iran).
Next Tuesday will be interesting…
We could try democracy for a change, but I’ve forgotten how that works, it seems so long since we had any.
Och, Richard, now you’ve got my hopes up!
They’re going to back down though, aren’t they?
We simply do not know as yet
I can’t see many backing down – though I’m sure some will – unless, and it’s a big unless – the government offer some serious concessions. And as I don’t think they will,it’s going to be a major rebellion. Unfortunately, I’m not as hopeful as you are that that would lead to Starmer’s demise. Except, perhaps, if some of the leading members of the cabinet, voice they back such a move. But who’d we end up with as replacement? No doubt it’d be Streeting, whose obviously been lined up to take Starmer’s place for a while now (as you’ve previously noted in blogs).
He’s such a disappointment.
There was no need for the Blairite ming vase strategy in the election campaign, Labour were always going to win. Starmer’s ludicrous caution helped to shed 3-4pc points in votes in that election because he was – deliberately – an inspiration-free zone throughout, which allowed Reform to sneak in and kept the Tories above 100 MPs when they deserved far worse.
Then, to believe he needed a pointless show of virility by cutting the Winter Fuel Allowance (inevitably reversed less than a year later) was yet more unnecessary Blairite posturing. Coming at the same time as the self inflicted furore over all the freebies he was taking, he alone completely obliterated all the political capital Labour had built following that election. All within a month. Starmer could have been sacked for that alone.
All we’ve had from him is cod-Tory thinking – cutscutscuts, cuts to foreign aid, small boat obsession, mindless talk of black holes and tax rises. What was the point of last July?
He is actually a huge success. Much of what he was positioned to do, he is doing. Corporations are being put in charge of infrastructure, Blackstone amongst others are buying up UK land and resources, corporate entities are effectively in charge of economic zones (e.g. Peel Group and others command the Manchester Ship canal corridor), huge amounts of UK money is going to war related activities and artefacts. The peasants are distracted by wars, real or cultural. The country is going to hell in a handcart, but a small number will get filthy rich, and there’s nothing we can do about it.
And the gangster mob known as NATO (a front for the USA) will be getting its protection money.
I am not at all disappointed by Starmer.
But then I neither voted for him to be Labour leader, nor for him to be Labour PM.
He neither needed, nor, let’s be honest, wanted my support.
He is doing exactly what I expected.
My understanding of this is that for the rebels to succeed they need the Speaker to select their ‘reasoned amendment’ to the bill, which – as he’s a former Labour MP of the right-wing variety – I feel just may not happen . . .
I think there would be outrage…
Somehow just cant see Starmer going – given all the effort his coterie have put in getting him to where he is. But they were so glaringly stupid boxing themselves in with the fiscal rules – how can people be so effectivelyy good and ruthleess at gaining power and yet so ineptily stupid at the same time
I’d make him walk home myself.
I would pay for the taxi…
Have you started a “Go Fund Me” or “Kickstarter” campaign yet or do I need to start one?
LOL! LOL!
There may be one coming for this blog…..
Heck, I would drive it!
Hope he goes. And am sure Reeves will be right in there plugging to become PM if the political hatchet does not take her out as well.
She should go as well, together with Rayner!
I’m not sure about Rayner.
Me, neither.
They finally got Starmer to the Hague!!
Unfortunately, it was only for the NATO Summit and he’s coming home again.
Why not call a General Election where Labour will be obliterated so comprehensively that as a political force they will be destroyed. Isn’t that the whole purpose of having got Starmer elected as leader of the Labour Party.
“Starmer might be consigned to political oblivion”
The House of Lords calls – where parties put out their has-beens, never weres and trash.
Ah well, they can put him in charge of managing tea trays – nothing too demanding.
I’m afraid this is an incorrect understanding of the relevant constitutional law. While that FT article is reporting that Starmer is not making this vote a matter of confidence, it is his prerogative to do so if he wishes. The Prime Minister can declare *any* vote in the House of Commons to be a matter of confidence; John Major used this tactic to get a key motion on the Maastricht Treaty passed.
Similarly, the Prime Minister may request a dissolution of Parliament at will, whether he formally lost the confidence of the House of Commons or not. It’s not that the King has no right to grant the dissolution request, but that he has effectively no right to *refuse* it. To refuse the request of the sitting Prime Minister to dissolve Parliament (whether because he formally lost the confidence of the Commons or simply because he wants to) would mean that the Prime Minister would have to resign.
I do not recall an instance of where a British monarch refused a dissolution request, but in the histories of Canada and Australia, the Governor General of each did exactly this, and both incidents are regarded as having been major constitutional crises. For the actual monarch to do this would be a crisis an order of magnitude greater. There is no way that King Charles could, or more pertinently *would*, refuse a dissolution request from Starmer, no matter how frivolous – and I completely agree that it would be frivolous, and destructive.
If the UK prime minister now wants to make a mockery of parliament you may be right.
If he wants to have the country provide an appropriate response to his tantrum he could do so.
But as matter of fact this is not a confidence vote.
And, as a matter of fact he won’t go to the county to lose. That is how it really is. So we will have to differ.
The king can, I think, ask if any OTHER MP can command the confidence of the house, before convention binds him to the dissolution. But maybe that’s only after a resignation, rather than a dissolution request?
If I was a betting man, my money would be on the welfare bill being softened and the amendment failing – ie: the rebellion petering out as they so often do.
But I wouldn’t risk my shirt on it. I think MPs have had some very angry letters about this so maybe, just maybe, they really do mean it this time, out of fear rather than principle, and Starmer is going to have to pull the bill. If he does THAT, then he’s got to do something about McTeam, but how can the puppet work without a puppet-master?
Stay hopeful!!
Correct
If Labour could offer another leader with the confidence of the House there is no election.
Interesting scenario.
Keep him on as PM to avoid a GE. Then get the labour party to dismiss him as leader.
All this as sitting government.
I’ll get the popcorn and beer (since I’m in the Netherlands we have beer at the cinema!)
McSweeney will be telling Starmer what he should do next!
Rule One in politics. Never believe the whips.
They rely on fear, greed and blackmail.
They are almost as unreliable as political journalists.
Do they want to stop this rebellion? YES.
Can they stop it? DUNNO.
What will Starmer do?
See my other post
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2025/06/25/taxi-for-starmer/comment-page-1/#comment-1027539
ie: the bill to be pulled, or softened.
Why do I think that?
Because Starmer is weak and he’s also a bully, facing a rebellion. Bullying won’t work on enough of the 128 MPs who have already gone public.
I’m not sure he knows how to stick to political principles, that would be a first for him and I have no evidence that he HAS any political principles to stick to but I think he wants to remain PM.
I also think there a lot of Labour MPs who want his job. The ones who might succeed, are no friends of mine.
Interesting times, it always is, when no one knows what will happen next, certainly not me.