Keir Starmer: Where did it all go wrong?

Keir Starmer’s resignation has been in the post for some time.

For several months, the question has been not about if, but when he would go.

Today he has finally accepted this his party does not want him to be the man the leads it into the next general election.

In a fairly dignified resignation statement, he said he would leave the top job with “good grace”, having spent the last six years fixing a part that was “politically, financially and morally bankrupt”.

It’s remarkable that a man who won such a huge majority in the House of Commons less than two years ago has ended up here.

While at the time of his election as prime minister there were warnings about the fragility of public support for this Labour government, few could have predicted how quickly it would all fall to pieces.

So when and where did things go wrong?

Almost immediately, is the answer to the first question. Labour’s honeymoon period was small, cut short in part by a statement from Chancellor Rachel Reeves who warned of “incredibly tough choices” ahead.

It was a far cry from the Things Can Only Get Better optimism that met the last Labour government. A statement that was clearly designed to temper expectations on how fast the new government would be able to deliver the change it promised only ended up cementing the feeling that things in the UK were bleak and would continue to be bleak.

Winter fuel payments were to be slashed, planned infrastructure investment cut (it didn’t matter that these had been announced by the previous Conservative government and not costed), and some tax increases might be necessary.

This dour mood has carried right the way through government and has overshadowed many of the more positive decisions. Support for Labour plummeted and has struggled to recover.

Internally, this created significant friction between the various factions within the party. The dissatisfaction was not enough to topple the government but various blocs of MPs made it clear they were unhappy with some of these early decisions.

Starmer did manage to successfully navigate these issues, such as by ultimately scrapping the two-child cap, partially reinstating the winter fuel payment, and U-turning on planned welfare changes that threatened to spark a mass rebellion. The parliamentary party was still not happy, but dissension was not enough to create a threat. So far, so Labour.

But the party’s left and right struggle to see eye to eye in fairer weather, and what was about to come was a storm.

In December 2024, the UK Government confirmed what has long been rumoured: Peter Mandelson was to become the UK’s ambassador to the US.

Despite being sacked twice from previous governments, Mandelson was considered by many to be a wise choice given the imminent re-inauguration of President Donald Trump. Downing Street said the appointment of a Labour grandee – instead of the usual career diplomat or civil servant – “shows just how importantly we see our relationship with the Trump administration”.

Starmer knew of Mandelson’s links to convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein but clearly judged it not to be a big enough issue to be a barrier. That was error one.

The second was making the announcement before vetting had taken place. And the third was not asking more questions about the outcome of those checks.

The early part of this year saw revelation after revelation of failed vetting, officials being overruled by other officials, ministers not being providing important information, and accusations of “constant pressure” to push the appointment through as soon as possible.

While Starmer has admitted the appointment was a mistake, and offered his apologies to Epstein’s victims, the whole affair cast doubt on his judgement and whether he had deliberately not asked the right questions. Clearly some level of relationship between Mandelson and Epstein was acceptable. How deep and dark did the relationship need to be before it became an issue?

Still, Starmer survived the turbulence of April when former civil servant Olly Robbins and former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney appeared before the Commons’ Foreign Affairs Committee. But many observers agreed this had more to do with the upcoming elections that any real backing for him. Starmer might have been able to weather Labour’s defeat in the Scottish Parliament election but coupled with heavy losses in the English local elections and being unseated from power for the first time in Wales was too much to bear. He had to go.

But who could succeed Starmer? The lack of any clear successor has been part of this whole story from the beginning – removing Starmer always felt inevitable, but cutting off the head without a way to staunch the flow would have been a level of self-harm that even Labour wanted to avoid.

That issue resolved itself last Thursday.

Andy Burnham’s decisive victory in Makerfield proved to many that here was a person who could command the support of the whole of the Labour party and the public. He is widely thought to be the only person who may be capable of holding off a Reform victory at the next general election.

Still, there’s a way to go until Burnham is crowned. Starmer confirmed in his speech earlier that while is intends to go fairly quickly – by the end of the summer – it is out of his hands whether it becomes a coronation. Other contenders may still put their names forward when the nomination period opens next month.

Wes Streeting has frequently seemed a likely candidate, though most recent rumours suggest he had backed down and instead may be happen with a key role in Burnham’s cabinet. Some suggest a Burnham government with a Street chancellorship may be in the works.

Other possible contenders including Angela Rayner, having resolve her tax affairs, and Shabana Mahmood appear also to be set to roll in behind Burnham.

But this is Labour. An outsider may chance their arm after all. Yet MPs may wish the avoid the spectacle of a leadership debate, opt to crown Burnham, and try to put the past two years behind them.