Prime Minister Keir Starmer possesses one formidable weapon of last resort that he could potentially deploy to maintain his grip on power: the authority to call a general election. More precisely, he holds the power to advise the King to dissolve Parliament, a request typically granted unless an alternative leader can command the confidence of the House of Commons.
The Constitutional Conundrum and Political Peril
This scenario plunges Britain's flexible constitution into complexity. The Labour Party, commanding a substantial majority of 168 seats, should theoretically unite behind an alternative leader to avoid the dreadful prospect of facing the electorate while languishing in third place within opinion polls. However, what if Keir Starmer defiantly insists? What if he argues that the public did not endorse Angela Rayner's more left-wing agenda during the last election and demands fresh consultation on such a significant shift?
Starmer might contend that a Rayner-led government would not serve the national interest, compelling him to prioritise country over party. The prime minister's allies have already issued vague warnings that a leadership challenge could trigger a general election, though specifics remain elusive. This Samson-like strategy of Starmer potentially bringing the political temple down around him could be explicitly communicated to Labour MPs tempted to nominate a replacement candidate.
The Deterrent of Mutually Assured Destruction
Threatening to call an election where Labour faces likely obliteration may appear irrational to logical observers. Yet, the deterrent power of mutually assured destruction hinges precisely on uncertainty regarding the opponent's rationality. These allies have further claimed that a change in prime minister might precipitate economic chaos, assuming Rayner, possibly with Ed Miliband as chancellor, would pursue increased spending and borrowing.
One anonymous minister notoriously labelled Rayner as Labour's Liz Truss, a dramatic exaggeration that nonetheless contains kernels of truth regarding market unease. Financial instability could stem both from leadership turbulence and prospects of relaxed public finance controls. Evidence suggests Starmer intends to fight vigorously to retain his position, dismissing rumours that Peter Mandelson scandal distress might prompt voluntary resignation as deliberate destabilisation tactics reflecting governmental morale issues.
Historical Precedents and Constitutional Realities
Starmer possesses legitimate justification for resisting forced departure. He could echo Tony Blair's 2006 declaration when Gordon Brown's supporters agitated for change: The public must not be treated as irrelevant bystanders in determining their prime minister. Constitutionally, no general election requirement exists when prime ministers change, but politically, new leaders ideally secure personal mandates.
Gordon Brown comprehended this principle, hence his abortive attempt to call an election shortly after reaching Number 10. Theresa May similarly understood, though her 2017 electoral gamble proved regrettable. Appropriately, Brown, an expert in orderly transitions, has re-emerged offering media advice to his successor regarding current turmoil. Brown suggested Starmer might have been too slow implementing necessary reforms, urging judgment based on coming months' cleanup efforts.
The Narrowing Window for Resolution
This establishes a critical timeframe: Starmer has mere months to demonstrate progress. During this period, Labour must regain sensible perspective. MPs must recognise that although the prime minister likely won't activate his doomsday election option, they cannot disregard public sentiment if pursuing leadership change. This precludes launching challenges when Rayner remains probable victor despite widespread electorate and market distrust.
Recent Labour membership polling conducted before Epstein files publication indicated Wes Streeting gaining ground, yet he still trails both Rayner and Miliband. Until Labour's soft left accepts Streeting as optimal candidate for governmental renewal, leadership change remains perilous, potentially paving Nigel Farage's path to power in 2029.
The Fundamental Flaw in Leadership Selection
Increasingly, observers recognise the historic error committed by Labour in 1981 and replicated by Conservatives in 1998: removing prime ministerial selection from exclusive parliamentary control. The Liz Truss episode demonstrates dangers when party members alone choose leaders. While the anonymous minister's Rayner-Truss comparison was unkind and inaccurate, member-driven selection proves hazardous until members consistently choose nationally acceptable candidates.
The coming months will determine whether Starmer's nuclear deterrent proves sufficient to quell rebellion, or whether Labour's internal dynamics force constitutional confrontation with unpredictable electoral consequences.
