It was the eve of the elections, and an unusual stillness enveloped No. 10 Downing Street, as the decision was made to keep Keir Starmer off the campaign trail. The consensus among party strategists was that his presence could negatively impact Labour’s election prospects.
Campaign teams from across the nation echoed the sentiments reflected in polling data, indicating that the Prime Minister was detrimental to Labour’s appeal. Many voters reacted negatively at the mere mention of his name, some even crossing themselves in dismay. The prevailing strategy was to minimize Starmer’s visibility, as it seemed that the less he was seen, the more favorable opinions of him became. In this peculiar twist of perception, Starmer was more effective as an abstract concept than as an active political figure.
Pat McFadden, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, along with Steve Reed, emerged as the reliable voices for the party, stepping in to address media inquiries on Wednesday morning. When questioned about Starmer’s low profile and limited campaign appearances, McFadden dismissed any notion of panic. He asserted that the Prime Minister had been diligently overseeing the nation’s affairs, including managing a national response to antisemitism, in contrast to the Green Party’s Zack Polanski.
McFadden articulated that it would have been irresponsible for Starmer to divert his attention from pressing national issues, with the Jewish community facing threats and the country on the brink of rationing. He argued that prioritizing media appearances over urgent responsibilities would signify a failure to put the nation’s needs first.
In fact, McFadden suggested that Starmer would wear any losses in seats or councils as a badge of honor, indicating that he was performing his duties well. While other parties were consumed with their electoral ambitions across England, Wales, and Scotland, he believed their focus on self-interest demonstrated their unfitness to govern. Ironically, as these parties, excluding the Conservatives, were poised for better outcomes than Labour, they would likely assume power.
Regardless of the election results, McFadden reassured that Starmer would retain his position. He emphasized that the Prime Minister had a five-year mandate and intended to fulfill it, regardless of public sentiment or party expectations. Even if Labour performed poorly, Starmer would not be stepping down, which was contrary to the desires of both the public and the party.
Any speculation about leadership challenges was dismissed as mere rumor. McFadden maintained that loyalty to Starmer was strong, particularly from Wes Streeting, who humorously remarked that being alive didn’t mean he was scheming against Starmer. Streeting expressed confusion over the coup rumors and asserted that Labour’s losses would only solidify Starmer’s position, suggesting that any potential threat to his leadership would arise only if Labour exceeded expectations—a scenario McFadden deemed unlikely.
Angela Rayner also reaffirmed her loyalty, having previously apologized to Starmer for her support of a Tory initiative regarding the Peter Mandelson controversy. The misunderstanding was now behind them, and they were reportedly on amicable terms again, with discussions of her possible return to the cabinet in a future reshuffle, contingent on her acceptance of Starmer’s terms.
As for Andy Burnham, he was said to be casually inquiring whether some Manchester MPs would consider stepping back from the Commons for life peerages. McFadden characterized this as Burnham’s caring nature, emphasizing that there was no truth to claims suggesting Starmer was allowing Burnham to bide his time in Westminster as part of a strategic plan to rejuvenate the party’s fortunes.
McFadden concluded that the party had exhausted the notion of continuously changing leaders. He argued that voters had elected Starmer and deserved to give him a chance to improve the situation, despite the negative feedback he was receiving on the campaign trail. This sentiment echoed the political reality that, while Starmer faced unpopularity, it did not equate to an outright desire for his removal.
Reflecting on previous leadership changes, McFadden acknowledged the difficulties faced by former Prime Ministers Theresa May, Boris Johnson, and Liz Truss, suggesting that forcing the Tories to replace them was a step in the right direction for the country. However, he did not have to defend his logic further, as the conversation returned to the original premise: Starmer’s position remained secure, contingent on the Labour Party’s support, even as the public sentiment seemed divided.
