Dr Mike Phipps is the editor of For the Many: Preparing Labour for Power (OR Books, 2018). He has worked for decades within the Labour Party to promote social change and international solidarity. He was a founding member of the Labour Representation Committee is a member of the Executive Committee of the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy and writes for the website Labour Hub. A long-term anti-war activist, he was a founder member of Iraq Occupation Focus and has edited its fortnightly e-newsletter for several years.

It’s impossible to say at the time of writing whether Keir Starmer’s leadership of the Labour Party will drag on, Kinnock-style, until either the left or the right of the Party feel they are in a strong enough position to promote a candidate of their own. The 2020 leadership contest showed that neither wing had a potential leader with sufficient appeal to the Party’s selectorate. In that sense, Starmer remains a compromise choice, holding the affection of neither the left, who need more time to develop a credible candidate from the post-2015 intake, nor the right of the Party, who also need time to put more distance between themselves and the remnants of the Blair-Brown era. Viewed from this perspective, it is less the individual shortcomings of the leader that is making Labour’s progress so elusive than his lack of a power base among the Party’s powerful factions. But this is not a situation that can remain unresolved in the longer term, and it is already evident from personnel changes in the Shadow Cabinet and the Party apparatus that Starmer has chosen to tilt away from his leadership campaign promises to embrace the analysis promoted by Mandelson and the right.

The mood of ordinary Party members who voted for Starmer is harder to judge. Many undoubtedly still feel that the leader has had a uniquely difficult year and deserves more time to shine. But it is equally clear that more poor election results will generate further questions about Starmer’s fitness for the job.

Some commentators, however, have already made up their mind. Writing after the local election results, in a piece entitled “Keir Starmer Is Now the Worst Person, at the Worst Moment, to Lead the Labour Party”, Aaron Bastani asked: “Does Keir Starmer actually want to be prime minister?” He produced a litany of reasons to conclude in the negative:

“While members, many of whom voted for him, wish to focus on policy and an economic response to the devastation of Covid-19, the leader obsessively mentions the party’s failings – and why people are right to dislike it… Starmer himself has no real grasp of contemporary politics. This is why he is now so seduced by the idea of a re-run of the 1990s… This inability to understand why politics has changed means he still believes elections are won from the ‘centre’… Starmer and his team have no meaningful understanding of political action… recently Starmer allegedly told the shadow cabinet he has no interest in rallies of the party faithful… Finally, Starmer has no political vision.”217

“Hapless” was the word one activist used to describe Keir Starmer’s last eighteen months to me. Labour’s leader doesn’t so much shape events, as react to them. Apart from knocking someone off their bicycle, the only time Starmer seemed to make the headlines was when he was reacting to things happening elsewhere, above all in his own Party.

Dr Mike Phipps is the editor of For the Many: Preparing Labour for Power (OR Books, 2018). He has worked for decades within the Labour Party to promote social change and international solidarity. He was a founding member of the Labour Representation Committee is a member of the Executive Committee of the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy and writes for the website Labour Hub. A long-term anti-war activist, he was a founder member of Iraq Occupation Focus and has edited its fortnightly e-newsletter for several years.

It’s impossible to say at the time of writing whether Keir Starmer’s leadership of the Labour Party will drag on, Kinnock-style, until either the left or the right of the Party feel they are in a strong enough position to promote a candidate of their own. The 2020 leadership contest showed that neither wing had a potential leader with sufficient appeal to the Party’s selectorate. In that sense, Starmer remains a compromise choice, holding the affection of neither the left, who need more time to develop a credible candidate from the post-2015 intake, nor the right of the Party, who also need time to put more distance between themselves and the remnants of the Blair-Brown era. Viewed from this perspective, it is less the individual shortcomings of the leader that is making Labour’s progress so elusive than his lack of a power base among the Party’s powerful factions. But this is not a situation that can remain unresolved in the longer term, and it is already evident from personnel changes in the Shadow Cabinet and the Party apparatus that Starmer has chosen to tilt away from his leadership campaign promises to embrace the analysis promoted by Mandelson and the right.

The mood of ordinary Party members who voted for Starmer is harder to judge. Many undoubtedly still feel that the leader has had a uniquely difficult year and deserves more time to shine. But it is equally clear that more poor election results will generate further questions about Starmer’s fitness for the job.

Some commentators, however, have already made up their mind. Writing after the local election results, in a piece entitled “Keir Starmer Is Now the Worst Person, at the Worst Moment, to Lead the Labour Party”, Aaron Bastani asked: “Does Keir Starmer actually want to be prime minister?” He produced a litany of reasons to conclude in the negative:

“While members, many of whom voted for him, wish to focus on policy and an economic response to the devastation of Covid-19, the leader obsessively mentions the party’s failings – and why people are right to dislike it… Starmer himself has no real grasp of contemporary politics. This is why he is now so seduced by the idea of a re-run of the 1990s… This inability to understand why politics has changed means he still believes elections are won from the ‘centre’… Starmer and his team have no meaningful understanding of political action… recently Starmer allegedly told the shadow cabinet he has no interest in rallies of the party faithful… Finally, Starmer has no political vision.”217

“Hapless” was the word one activist used to describe Keir Starmer’s last eighteen months to me. Labour’s leader doesn’t so much shape events, as react to them. Apart from knocking someone off their bicycle, the only time Starmer seemed to make the headlines was when he was reacting to things happening elsewhere, above all in his own Party.