Who might replace Starmer?

As predicted at the start of the summer, the idea that the Prime Minister might not make it through another year is gaining traction. This is less about the various crises that have hit the government since MPs returned from holidays, or even primarily about the party’s dire poll ratings, but his style of governing.

If MPs felt that there a clear agenda and a grip on delivery they’d be more relaxed about low voter satisfaction and the occasional bad by-election three and half years away from an election. It was never going to be easy dealing with their inheritance and there was a willingness to give Starmer and his team time.

But there is a growing sense that things are not working and aren’t likely to be turned around. Even loyal MPs are describing the situation as terminal. Frustration centres on three things:

• Starmer’s lack of clarity about what he wants to achieve: this is something I’ve written about repeatedly since before the election and it continues to be the central problem. Because he isn’t clear on what he wants he prefers to delegate and doesn’t like having to settle disputes between departments, seeing this as something his Ministers should be able to sort out between themselves. But departments inevitably have different priorities and will tend to go off in their own direction without a clear steer from the centre. That’s how you get a government giving off so many mixed messages claiming, for instance, that growth is their number one priority but also loading costs and obligations onto businesses. In every white paper, from immigration to devolution, you can see the compromises that departments have painfully negotiated between themselves, leaving no one satisfied.

• Party management: it was apparent during the welfare debacle over the summer that Starmer had little understanding of the strength of feeling about the issue amongst his MPs. Warnings were dismissed until it was too late to fix the problem. It’s not just rebels that were left unhappy but those who remained loyal were then undercut with the u-turn. There is a widespread view that Starmer’s team can be highly factional and petty, alienating senior MPs with whom there is a lot of common ground on policy.

• The number 10 operation: Downing Street has been overhauled since I wrote about it earlier this year. This has resolved some of the specific personnel issues that had been causing friction. Something resembling a delivery unit has been set up. But a lot of issues remain. Morgan McSweeney is still in the wrong job – he’s a campaigner not a Chief of Staff. The policy unit is being rebuilt with new staff but is still too peripheral. There’s briefing against Chris Wormald, the Cabinet Secretary. The comms operation still isn’t functioning properly despite another round of staff changes. It’s a source of major consternation across departments.

There’s still time to turn things around. Some more excitable reports suggest there could be a leadership challenge before Christmas but this seems unlikely. I’ve always thought the local, Scottish and Welsh elections in May would be the riskiest moment for him (and Kemi Badenoch) and that still seems right. Indeed May is now being more explicitly mentioned by MPs as being the decisive moment.

Labour’s process for changing leader requires a challenger (there’s not a “no confidence” mechanism). If the challenger get 20% of MPs signed up then it goes to a vote of members, including those affiliated via their trade union. I suspect, though, unlike Jeremy Corbyn, that if enough MPs indicated they’d lost confidence Starmer would probably resign rather than go through a contest.

It helps Starmer that there’s no obvious successor, which Angela Rayner was before her resignation. Her going has, however, led to more jostling and positioning amongst alternative candidates. So who are the possible contenders and who has the best chance of becoming PM if Starmer can’t turn things around? And would it make any difference?