Is It Really About Starmer?

Conventional wisdom would suggest it's all about Mandelson and his purported links to Epstein. People decry the vetting process and Starmer's acceptance of Mandelson's assurances. But is that what this is really about, or is this a simple case of bait-and-switch? It's no secret to any sentient Briton that Labour is drowning in the polls, with Reform UK seemingly headed for victory in the next election. Might I suggest that the Canadian experience could prove instructive: our Conservative Party enjoyed a thirty-point lead in the polls for the better part of two years and then failed to seal the deal in last spring's federal election.

It is not unreasonable to point out that Labour undoubtedly took some note of how things went in Canada. If that is indeed the case, all the manoeuvrings coupled with increasing calls for Starmer to resign might be based on political considerations, namely, saving Labour's ass in the next election. Some may believe that a change of leader could revive Labour's sagging fortunes. Those with that view might also argue that Farage can be well tolerated in small doses, but not if he becomes prime minister. 

So, if I'm on track, this move against Starmer is primarily about keeping power and one-fourth based on Mandelson. Others will say that the best Labour could do is hold off the inevitable with a change of leader: the cases of Thatcher-Major and Blair-Brown being most instructive. In any event, Starmer would do well to go, putting country and party ahead of his personal ambitions. The name of the game going forward must be to stop Farage, bearing in mind that a change of leader, even under Jesus Christ, would not necessarily do the trick. In the end, it may be Farage after all, no matter what Labour does.