Keir Starmer gives his rallying speech follow Labour losses in the local elections, 10 May 2026. Photos: Carl Court / Getty
Keir Starmer’s premiership sits on a knife edge. Labour’s worst election results in England and Wales have sent the party into convulsions that have exposed deep ideological and personal divisions between the parliamentary party and its leadership.
The result: a shambolic few days, reminiscent of the end of Tory rule, in which an MP most people have never heard of managed to almost trigger a leadership campaign that the few contenders qualified to run seemed unprepared to join, while a string of anonymous junior ministers (and Jess Phillips) couldn’t quit their positions fast enough in order to jump on X to make their feelings about this circus known.
As it stands, over 90 MPs have called for him to go; junior ministers have begun to resign; and at least one “big beast”, home secretary Shabana Mahmood, reportedly told Starmer his time was up. Meanwhile, 100 MPs have signed a statement in support of him while cabinet loyalists such as housing secretary Steve Reed and business secretary Peter Kyle argue that forcing him out would plunge the party and country into crisis.
Angry MPs, many terrified about what it means for their own seats, want the prime minister gone – saying the voters’ visceral dislike of him can’t be overcome. Meanwhile, loyalists insist he’s been dealt a difficult hand – including foreign wars and a fragile economy – and that he’s played it as well as anyone could.
The truth, I think, lies somewhere in the middle. Polls have consistently shown Starmer is disliked by the electorate, but quitting right now risks further chaos. The only solution is an orderly transition that will allow the party to choose a candidate that can unite the left and the right. To do otherwise will lead to two more years of internal division, even more febrile attacks from rightwing hacks, and smooth Nigel Farage’s path to No 10.
Starmer's make-or-break speech was a perfect microcosm of where it's all gone wrong – he attempted to foreground areas where his government has made undeniable progress while ignoring a string of inexplicable unforced errors. The aim was to rally the troops and set a new, revitalised course of action. It was instead one long example of the personal misjudgment that has dogged his leadership.
The monologue was delivered in London to a room full of handpicked MPs and sceptical political journalists. The prime minister read the words with feeling, though the contents was clearly written by committee. Journalist Steve Richards tells me his team had been preparing for this moment for weeks, which makes it even more absurd that it was so … inauthentic. As Karl Turner MP said: “Nothing sounds more authentic than a man reading an autocue.” The PM began by acknowledging that “the election results were tough, very tough” while holding on to the lectern like a drowning man in violent seas. “I take responsibility for delivering the change that we [Labour] promised for a ‘stronger, fairer, Britain’.” It was, disappointingly, a typically Starmeresque, entirely oblique, phrase.
It’s this over-reliance on an inner circle full of bad speechwriters and even worse advisers, who have failed to help him appear remotely human, that has brought him to where he is. This, I may remind you, is the same team that managed to purge Labour of its lefties, crush dissent and push Peter Mandelson’s appointment to Washington as a great idea.
Nerve political commentator Sangita Myska
Back to the speech. He told the audience that his main reason for not going quietly was that we live in dangerous times – both at home and abroad. Domestically, he pointed to the threat posed by Reform UK and the Green party – suggesting both were as extreme and divisive as each other. This, of course, is not true. While both parties have members and councillors under investigation for racism and antisemitism, only one of those leaders is accused of saying “Hitler was right”, took a £5m “gift” from a crypto billionaire and has drawn up a manifesto that many consider to be racist.
That fact is, Nigel Farage is a threat to democracy, while Zack Polanski is a threat to the Labour party. Drawing this sort of false equivalence will only backfire if Labour wants to win back those disaffected voters who lent the Greens their vote to send Starmer a message.
His over-reliance on an inner circle full of bad speechwriters and even worse advisers, who have failed to help him appear remotely human, has brought him to where he is
The PM went on to mention Iran a few times; presumably because his refusal to get directly involved in Trump’s illegal war led to a brief bump in his poor personal approval ratings. This, of course, stands in sharp contrast to his mishandling of Gaza – who can forget the moment he said Israel, a key ally, was right to cut off all aid, water and electricity to 2.1 million people in response to Hamas’s horrific attack on 7 October 2023? It was the first of many positions on the issue that have left a deep wound in the reputation of a man who was once a progressive director of public prosecutions. I mean, nothing says “your human rights are safe with me” like banging up some pensioners for holding up a sign in protest at the highly contested decision to ban Palestine Action.
In the speech, Starmer rightly referenced “defence, Europe and energy” being key areas where the “Labour case” had to be made – without ever actually making it. Instead, he confirmed plans already in the pipeline to renationalise British Steel. As a one-off move, it will secure Britain’s ability to make virgin steel and save thousands of jobs, but it comes at a price: according to the National Audit Office, the cost of running the plant at Scunthorpe could exceed £1.5bn by 2028.
This was, therefore, the perfect moment to sell the idea as part of a bigger plan – perhaps the industrial strategy Britain desperately needs. Instead, he quickly moved on to his thoughts about Europe, which amounted to more young people going on placements abroad, and something about Britain being at heart of Europe, without addressing the elephant in the room: if the UK doesn’t re-enter the single market or customs union, our economy is condemned to an unending malaise.
Starmer repeatedly mentioned the kickback against the “status quo” that had “badly failed” Britain. He was right on this score; it was unfortunate, then, that his latest appointee, 75-year-old Harriet Harman – who triggered strong Rishi-Sunak-turns-to-David-Cameron vibes – had, just an hour before, accidentally published a private message (later deleted) to the controversial former leader of Oldham council which appeared to offer her a peerage.
I’m not for a moment trying to suggest that clearing up the mess left by 14 years of Tory mismanagement and sheer avarice is remotely doable in two years. However, Starmer’s poor communications skills in the face of highly articulate populist leaders, hypocrisy in his response to foreign conflicts, draconian clampdowns on our right to protest, lack of cohesive plan for growth beyond piecemeal emergency measures, and failure to bring the party together after a brutal few years (for which he and his advisers were responsible) have sealed his fate. If Starmer, as he promised when he was first elected, puts “country first, party second” then he must go before the next general election. The only question is: when?
Sangita Myska is the Nerve’s political commentator and a broadcast journalist. Her latest news report, for Middle East Eye on Trump’s corrupt presidency can be viewed here.