Not for the first time, the media bubble in London has been opining on how many days Keir Starmer has left as prime minister. That was last week as Morgan McSweeney resigned as his chief of staff, followed by his head of communications. The Cabinet secretary also stood down.

All of this came in the wake of damaging revelations in the Epstein files about Peter Mandelson, the former British ambassador to Washington. He is a man who has been a stalwart of New Labour in the Blair-Brown years, and close to the Starmer camp. The issue for Starmer centers on whether he recklessly ignored warnings about Mandelson before appointing him to this prime diplomatic role. It is the prime minister’s judgment that is in question.

Labour politicians were furious. Many had been skeptical about Mandelson, a man who was forced to resign twice from Cabinet roles. His friendship with the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein was well known. How did this not come up in security vetting?

Starmer was forced to apologize for having appointed Mandelson. Many at the time were surprised, but others had seen a benefit in deploying such an experienced political operator with so many contacts across the American political and business worlds.

Notably it is the advisers who have gone. The political masters remain. If Starmer is to survive, he cannot have another round where the politicians escape consequences. The leader himself has used up a fair share of his cat’s lives.

Many will be waiting for the local elections in May as well as an upcoming byelection. Few in Labour are expecting anything other than a mauling from the electorate. This may be the point of greatest weakness for Starmer.

The reality remains that removing a prime minister in the British system and within the Labour Party is not easy. And what sort of a look does it give Britain to have four prime ministers since 2022? Many have started comparing the situation to Italy, which was famed for the short tenure of its post-war governments. Notably the current incumbent has lasted since 2022.

How has Starmer responded? He has sought political sustenance from the international stage. While the home front has been a minefield that he has failed to navigate, Starmer has looked more comfortable shoring up support for European defense and pushing back against Russian aggression. At the Munich Security Conference, he defined his view of UK-EU relations, saying: “There is no British security without Europe and no European security without Britain.”

But Starmer tried to translate this into a domestic pitch, too, taking aim at both the Reform Party and the Greens. Both parties are surging at the polls. “It’s striking that the different ends of the spectrum share so much. Soft on Russia. Weak on NATO, if not outright opposed. And determined to sacrifice the relationship we need on the altar of their ideology.”

What will be the impact of all this? The departure of McSweeney will give succour to those who want change, of course. He had led a crusade against the hard left of the party. But it will fuel hope that the Starmer government’s craven complicity with the Israeli leadership, even as it perpetrates genocide in Gaza, could finally be challenged. McSweeney saw quashing the hard left as including trashing anyone in the party with pro-Palestinian sentiment.  

One senior Labour figure associated with both Mandelson and McSweeney has sounded dissent on the Palestine front. Wes Streeting, the health secretary, a leading figure from the right of the party, published all his messages with Mandelson. What was intriguing was him voicing concerns in private about Israeli conduct. “Israel is committing war crimes before our eyes. Their government talks the language of ethnic cleansing and I have met with our own medics out there who describe the most chilling and distressing scenes of calculated brutality against women and children.”  This was last July. But Streeting went further: “This is rogue state behavior. Let them pay the price as pariahs with sanctions applied to the state, not just a few ministers.”

Questions persist as to why the British government remains complicit. Will Starmer listen to Streeting? Finding a moral compass on Palestine might be a start.

Starmer will have to tap into as-yet-unexposed political courage to do this and more. He could go back to July 2024 when he stood outside Downing Street and proclaimed that his government would put “country first, party second.” He spoke of a “a return of politics to public service.” This has not been the narrative of his government so far.

This means cleaning up the political ecosystem. Regulations can be tightened on political appointments with enhanced vetting. The interface between politicians and business can be properly marshalled. Starmer can crack down on cronyism that has bedeviled appointments to the unelected House of Lords. He can ensure foreign funding from Russia, for example, does not undermine the democratic character of the nation.  

This would be a cleaning of the British Augean stables. Is Starmer up to this Herculean task? 

Chris Doyle is director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding in London. X: @Doylech

© Eurasia Review