'When, not if' - Labour's uncertainty over Starmer's future

On Friday, Keir Starmer's circle gathered at his country retreat of Chequers to wargame the coming weeks for a prime minister whose future is on the line.

The official readout was that this was a long-standing away day with advisors and the inner cabinet to discuss the content and framing of the King's Speech, in which Labour sets out its agenda for the next session of parliament.

But the big question now is whether Starmer even makes it that far.

Ask his team and they will tell you that the PM intends to fulfil this mandate and serve out his full term as prime minister. He is focusing on dealing with the effects of the Ukraine and Iran conflicts and planning around that.

But that is not what most people in his party and around his cabinet table are talking about. They are talking about how Starmer might be replaced and who might be the one to do it.

When I ask around those in, or plugged into, the top circle, there is a view settling that Starmer will not be the prime minister to fight the next election.

A few weeks back, the prime minister looked in a better position than he had since his near political death experience in February, when more revelations about Peter Mandelson prompted a crisis which led Labour Scottish leader Anas Sarwar to demand the PM resign over "too many mistakes made."

His party thought he'd handled the UK's response to the Iran war well, while his more muscular approach to Donald Trump was being well received both in his party and a public overwhelmingly ill-disposed to the US president.

But the latest debacle around the Mandelson vetting scandal has put paid to the progress the PM had made in calming nerves in recent weeks, with the events of recent days draining Starmer's already depleted bank of authority to the point where even some in the cabinet have displayed a sense of weariness or reluctance to defend their leader on the morning rounds.

The fallout from the leak to The Guardian that Mandelson had failed his vetting, which saw the sacking of Olly Robbins and days of coverage of who said what and when, only cemented the view amongst his detractors that the PM lacks judgement and is not up to the job.

One former government adviser was bemused by the dismissal of Robbins because it created an entire new news cycle that the government very much didn't need, pointing out if Starmer had suspended him and called for an investigation, he could have better contained the fallout.

As it is, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee is now hearing from Robbins' predecessor Philip Barton, who was opposed to Mandelson's appointment, and the PM's former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney next week.

One senior party figure tells me they think there's "agreement he's not around for the next election, but the when and how and who? Ask 10 people and you get 10 different views."

Another minister says they believe Starmer's team knows he will not fight the next election, and it's a question of when, not if, the PM has to go. "He has to go."

In my conversations with people in the party in recent days, what emerges is that there is no settled view on what might happen or who might be a likely replacement. That the cabinet is not aligned - and that many in the cabinet are quietly considering their own bids - makes it more difficult.

There is endless talk about Angela Rayner, who is well-liked in the party, but has the question of her tax affairs still unresolved. All eyes will be on what sort of intervention she chooses to make after the local elections in May.

Wes Streeting is apparently going to the pubs for drinks with MPs, but as one of his supporters points out to me, the health secretary would need a coronation because he couldn't win with party members. That means getting huge momentum in the party, which is not moving as a pack at all.

There is also enthusiasm from many about getting Andy Burnham back and crowning him. But that route is complicated, and those who might want it would need to back Starmer now, to give Burnham the time to get back into parliament.

There is talk about Yvette Cooper, Ed Miliband, or possible caretaker PMs in Lucy Powell or John Healy, the defence secretary. It is, as you can see, messy, unclear and lacking organisation.

Layer on to this atmosphere a set of very difficult local election results, and the next few weeks look very uncertain indeed for Starmer. If the results come in as bad as are feared, with Labour being hit hard in the Northern red wall, Scotland, Wales and London, then it could prove to be a tinderbox moment.

"People are nervous before acting before the local elections, and the No 10 spin has been [that] we will have to have a general election and that will lead to a Reform government if we oust Keir," says one Labour minister. "But I think after the local elections, all gloves are off."

Another senior party figure tells me that it could get very messy after May: "I don't know if there is a move against Keir because under party rules it's still very hard to pull off. It's more likely that a trickle becomes a flood, and then he needs to go as he comes under pressure, and some key people don't back him up."

In February, when Scottish leader Anas Sarwar went over the top and called for the PM to resign, he looked behind him to find no one had joined him. The question now is, will Starmer still command the confidence of this cabinet after these elections in May?

But what is also true is that many in the parliamentary party do not want a leadership challenge. As one told me this week: "Keir is far from perfect, but I don't think the country needs the drama and chaos of a leadership battle right now."

That MP also made the point that there is "no clear replacement to coalesce around".

The uncertainty and internal divisions in the party are what Starmer's allies hope will help keep the prime minister in post for now, but they can be certain of nothing come polling day.

(c) Sky News 2026: 'When, not if' - Labour's uncertainty over Starmer's future