David Herdson
@davidherdson.bsky.social
Part-time writer. Political activist. Fan of Bradford City and rail travel (amongst other things). Bibliophile. Dad. List not necessarily in order of importance.
Even if there were a plot to oust Starmer (and one is more like now than it was 24 hours ago), all the PM has to do is sit tight.
He probably can't be formally challenged and there isn't the air of crisis, nor trigger, for the kind of resignations that brought down Johnson and Truss.
He probably can't be formally challenged and there isn't the air of crisis, nor trigger, for the kind of resignations that brought down Johnson and Truss.
November 12, 2025 at 10:35 AM
Even if there were a plot to oust Starmer (and one is more like now than it was 24 hours ago), all the PM has to do is sit tight.
He probably can't be formally challenged and there isn't the air of crisis, nor trigger, for the kind of resignations that brought down Johnson and Truss.
He probably can't be formally challenged and there isn't the air of crisis, nor trigger, for the kind of resignations that brought down Johnson and Truss.
Not that Tory MP can challenge their leader in an open contest either; that's not been the case since the 1990s. All the same, they do at least have the ability to provoke a binding Confidence vote in their leader any time they like.
Labour MPs have neither option open to them.
Labour MPs have neither option open to them.
November 12, 2025 at 10:32 AM
Not that Tory MP can challenge their leader in an open contest either; that's not been the case since the 1990s. All the same, they do at least have the ability to provoke a binding Confidence vote in their leader any time they like.
Labour MPs have neither option open to them.
Labour MPs have neither option open to them.
But the whole No 10 / Streeting story is bizarre, not just from the media narrative and internal politics but as a valid proposition.
What exactly is Streeting supposed to be trying to do? Labour isn't the Tories. MPs *can't* "challenge" a sitting leader before next summer; them's the rules.
What exactly is Streeting supposed to be trying to do? Labour isn't the Tories. MPs *can't* "challenge" a sitting leader before next summer; them's the rules.
November 12, 2025 at 10:30 AM
But the whole No 10 / Streeting story is bizarre, not just from the media narrative and internal politics but as a valid proposition.
What exactly is Streeting supposed to be trying to do? Labour isn't the Tories. MPs *can't* "challenge" a sitting leader before next summer; them's the rules.
What exactly is Streeting supposed to be trying to do? Labour isn't the Tories. MPs *can't* "challenge" a sitting leader before next summer; them's the rules.
Labour also has a bit of a dearth of other alternative leaders. Reeves is a non-starter, Lammy and Cooper uninspiring, Rayner tarnished, Lucy Powell (as deputy) a nonentity.
For No 10 to openly push one of the very few who can do media well as an alternative may well prompt MPs to ask 'why not?'.
For No 10 to openly push one of the very few who can do media well as an alternative may well prompt MPs to ask 'why not?'.
November 12, 2025 at 10:28 AM
Labour also has a bit of a dearth of other alternative leaders. Reeves is a non-starter, Lammy and Cooper uninspiring, Rayner tarnished, Lucy Powell (as deputy) a nonentity.
For No 10 to openly push one of the very few who can do media well as an alternative may well prompt MPs to ask 'why not?'.
For No 10 to openly push one of the very few who can do media well as an alternative may well prompt MPs to ask 'why not?'.
However, before yesterday the most high-profile Labour alternative leader was Burnham, which should have suited Starmer very well.
Burnham isn't an MP so would face any number of hurdles to even mount a challenge. But also, his record is less than it's made out to be.
Burnham isn't an MP so would face any number of hurdles to even mount a challenge. But also, his record is less than it's made out to be.
November 12, 2025 at 10:24 AM
However, before yesterday the most high-profile Labour alternative leader was Burnham, which should have suited Starmer very well.
Burnham isn't an MP so would face any number of hurdles to even mount a challenge. But also, his record is less than it's made out to be.
Burnham isn't an MP so would face any number of hurdles to even mount a challenge. But also, his record is less than it's made out to be.
Obviously, the best way for any PM to be practically immune to challenge is just to do the job well.
'Just' is a big word here: it's not an easy task. All the same, if you're effective and popular, it's likely that no-one will come for you - and even if they do, they'll fail miserably.
'Just' is a big word here: it's not an easy task. All the same, if you're effective and popular, it's likely that no-one will come for you - and even if they do, they'll fail miserably.
November 12, 2025 at 10:21 AM
Obviously, the best way for any PM to be practically immune to challenge is just to do the job well.
'Just' is a big word here: it's not an easy task. All the same, if you're effective and popular, it's likely that no-one will come for you - and even if they do, they'll fail miserably.
'Just' is a big word here: it's not an easy task. All the same, if you're effective and popular, it's likely that no-one will come for you - and even if they do, they'll fail miserably.
However, actively but anonymously undermining your own ministers is a recipe for poisonous relations, suspicion and plots. (Appropriate that it should be within a week of Bonfire Night.)
They've pushed Streeting into a position where he is now clearly the alternative. Not clever.
They've pushed Streeting into a position where he is now clearly the alternative. Not clever.
November 12, 2025 at 10:20 AM
However, actively but anonymously undermining your own ministers is a recipe for poisonous relations, suspicion and plots. (Appropriate that it should be within a week of Bonfire Night.)
They've pushed Streeting into a position where he is now clearly the alternative. Not clever.
They've pushed Streeting into a position where he is now clearly the alternative. Not clever.
Labour's also useless with its messaging. It has no narrative for how it even wants to change the country - so even if it is effective in, say, making housing more secure and affordable, chances are they won't get the credit for it because people won't have noticed that they're behind the changes.
November 12, 2025 at 9:55 AM
Labour's also useless with its messaging. It has no narrative for how it even wants to change the country - so even if it is effective in, say, making housing more secure and affordable, chances are they won't get the credit for it because people won't have noticed that they're behind the changes.
Indeed. Which is, understandably, upsetting pretty much everyone. The left because they're not getting the policy changes, the right because their priorities are not being fixed, and also non-aligned who just like governments to be confident and competent.
November 12, 2025 at 9:47 AM
Indeed. Which is, understandably, upsetting pretty much everyone. The left because they're not getting the policy changes, the right because their priorities are not being fixed, and also non-aligned who just like governments to be confident and competent.
It's not luck; it's systemic.
If the media and public are determined - whatever the reality - to see politicians as uniformly corrupt grifters and chancers then it's unsurprising if that narrows the talent pool considerably (which actively attracting corrupt grifters and chancers).
If the media and public are determined - whatever the reality - to see politicians as uniformly corrupt grifters and chancers then it's unsurprising if that narrows the talent pool considerably (which actively attracting corrupt grifters and chancers).
November 12, 2025 at 9:39 AM
It's not luck; it's systemic.
If the media and public are determined - whatever the reality - to see politicians as uniformly corrupt grifters and chancers then it's unsurprising if that narrows the talent pool considerably (which actively attracting corrupt grifters and chancers).
If the media and public are determined - whatever the reality - to see politicians as uniformly corrupt grifters and chancers then it's unsurprising if that narrows the talent pool considerably (which actively attracting corrupt grifters and chancers).
Also, being popular and being good at governing are also two different things - perhaps usually two contradictory things, in the first stages of a parliament.
November 12, 2025 at 9:37 AM
Also, being popular and being good at governing are also two different things - perhaps usually two contradictory things, in the first stages of a parliament.
Whether or not EFTA folds, the EEA remains an obvious off-the-shelf solution for the UK.
Yes, the EEA provisions don't allow for independent member access to the agreement. So what. The whole purpose of negotiations is to create mutually beneficial results. If that bar blocks progress, remove it.
Yes, the EEA provisions don't allow for independent member access to the agreement. So what. The whole purpose of negotiations is to create mutually beneficial results. If that bar blocks progress, remove it.
November 12, 2025 at 9:34 AM
Whether or not EFTA folds, the EEA remains an obvious off-the-shelf solution for the UK.
Yes, the EEA provisions don't allow for independent member access to the agreement. So what. The whole purpose of negotiations is to create mutually beneficial results. If that bar blocks progress, remove it.
Yes, the EEA provisions don't allow for independent member access to the agreement. So what. The whole purpose of negotiations is to create mutually beneficial results. If that bar blocks progress, remove it.
Lack of confidence in their own ability to assess which stories are biggest, and an excess of reverence for the written word.
November 11, 2025 at 5:21 PM
Lack of confidence in their own ability to assess which stories are biggest, and an excess of reverence for the written word.
It won't be unpopular either.
Scrapping the two-child cap is the right thing to do morally but will probably save money in the medium term anyway, as families not living in poverty tend to produce fewer demands on the state.
Scrapping the two-child cap is the right thing to do morally but will probably save money in the medium term anyway, as families not living in poverty tend to produce fewer demands on the state.
November 11, 2025 at 2:56 PM
It won't be unpopular either.
Scrapping the two-child cap is the right thing to do morally but will probably save money in the medium term anyway, as families not living in poverty tend to produce fewer demands on the state.
Scrapping the two-child cap is the right thing to do morally but will probably save money in the medium term anyway, as families not living in poverty tend to produce fewer demands on the state.
Their economic and foreign / defence policies are both a bit nuts - although they will appeal to those on the radical left.
However, I do think they've always been on the radical left. Bar the Corbyn period, I'd always have had Labour as more centrist.
But, yes. Big gap for them there.
However, I do think they've always been on the radical left. Bar the Corbyn period, I'd always have had Labour as more centrist.
But, yes. Big gap for them there.
November 11, 2025 at 1:13 PM
Their economic and foreign / defence policies are both a bit nuts - although they will appeal to those on the radical left.
However, I do think they've always been on the radical left. Bar the Corbyn period, I'd always have had Labour as more centrist.
But, yes. Big gap for them there.
However, I do think they've always been on the radical left. Bar the Corbyn period, I'd always have had Labour as more centrist.
But, yes. Big gap for them there.
It's suicidal when Labour is actively thumbing its nose at precisely the part of their coalition that would be most attracted to the Greens.
Although the Greens should be a joke.
Although the Greens should be a joke.
November 11, 2025 at 1:08 PM
It's suicidal when Labour is actively thumbing its nose at precisely the part of their coalition that would be most attracted to the Greens.
Although the Greens should be a joke.
Although the Greens should be a joke.
Just up from Cas Vegas, for those that don't know.
November 11, 2025 at 12:56 PM
Just up from Cas Vegas, for those that don't know.
True, but I'm working off where parties currently are.
Sure, all but Reform could make gains distancing from Trump (even Reform voters mixed but lots more pro there too), but the point is that Lab/Con aren't inclined to. The LDs are already in that space: they just need to shout louder.
Sure, all but Reform could make gains distancing from Trump (even Reform voters mixed but lots more pro there too), but the point is that Lab/Con aren't inclined to. The LDs are already in that space: they just need to shout louder.
November 11, 2025 at 12:54 PM
True, but I'm working off where parties currently are.
Sure, all but Reform could make gains distancing from Trump (even Reform voters mixed but lots more pro there too), but the point is that Lab/Con aren't inclined to. The LDs are already in that space: they just need to shout louder.
Sure, all but Reform could make gains distancing from Trump (even Reform voters mixed but lots more pro there too), but the point is that Lab/Con aren't inclined to. The LDs are already in that space: they just need to shout louder.
Big gap for the Lib Dems to walk into if they want, given that Labour and the Tories are on the Trump-appeasement van too.
(Not the Greens, despite their anti-Trump rhetoric: too ideological, insufficiently pragmatic)
(Not the Greens, despite their anti-Trump rhetoric: too ideological, insufficiently pragmatic)
November 11, 2025 at 12:23 PM
Big gap for the Lib Dems to walk into if they want, given that Labour and the Tories are on the Trump-appeasement van too.
(Not the Greens, despite their anti-Trump rhetoric: too ideological, insufficiently pragmatic)
(Not the Greens, despite their anti-Trump rhetoric: too ideological, insufficiently pragmatic)
No. Otherwise any tinpot dictatorship could produce 'court orders' and strip any foreign company or individual they don't like of their assets.
Presumably the most they could do is stop the BBC operating in the US - though it'd take forever to get that far and Trump is a fat old man.
Presumably the most they could do is stop the BBC operating in the US - though it'd take forever to get that far and Trump is a fat old man.
November 11, 2025 at 12:04 PM
No. Otherwise any tinpot dictatorship could produce 'court orders' and strip any foreign company or individual they don't like of their assets.
Presumably the most they could do is stop the BBC operating in the US - though it'd take forever to get that far and Trump is a fat old man.
Presumably the most they could do is stop the BBC operating in the US - though it'd take forever to get that far and Trump is a fat old man.
6/5 (ps) In the highly unlikely event that Trump does take the case through, and wins, and is awarded excessive damages (for a tiny point in a programme hardly anyone in Florida will have seen), the BBC should adopt Trump's principles: refuse to pay and drag out appeals as long as possible.
November 11, 2025 at 11:48 AM
6/5 (ps) In the highly unlikely event that Trump does take the case through, and wins, and is awarded excessive damages (for a tiny point in a programme hardly anyone in Florida will have seen), the BBC should adopt Trump's principles: refuse to pay and drag out appeals as long as possible.
5/5 The BBC should stand by their programme, noting the minor error. Would he really want the publicity of a case hinging on his reputation and the events of 6 Jan 2021, on the balance of probabilities? With the First Amendment protections for the BBC?
Call his bluff. TACO remains a good principle.
Call his bluff. TACO remains a good principle.
November 11, 2025 at 11:46 AM
5/5 The BBC should stand by their programme, noting the minor error. Would he really want the publicity of a case hinging on his reputation and the events of 6 Jan 2021, on the balance of probabilities? With the First Amendment protections for the BBC?
Call his bluff. TACO remains a good principle.
Call his bluff. TACO remains a good principle.