“`html
Who is in charge? The answer, one might assume, should be readily apparent.
“This government should be operating with remarkable efficiency, encountering no obstacles,” a Whitehall insider suggests, given the considerable number of Labour MPs who consistently support the Prime Minister during weekly parliamentary sessions.
However, by expelling a small contingent of backbenchers this week, Sir Keir Starmer has inadvertently reignited the debate surrounding his leadership.
Determining who truly holds the reins of power is, therefore, proving to be a complex matter.
According to one senior official, the government possesses a “backbench they – and we – are surprised to discover they can’t control.”
Simultaneously, financial markets are exerting considerable pressure, national debt remains elevated, and, as described by a No. 10 source, a “deep current of instability” pervades the global landscape.
Sir Keir’s forthcoming meeting with President Donald Trump exemplifies this uncertainty – there is no guarantee what the latter might say or do alongside the Prime Minister on Scottish soil next week.
Government officials remain uncertain about the potential repercussions, although it has been firmly stated that Sir Keir will not be seen engaging in recreational activities with his transatlantic counterpart.
While no administration can realistically expect to wield absolute control, the ability to convincingly project authority and effectively exercise power is a distinct challenge.
Neither all of Sir Keir’s MPs, nor all members of the government, are convinced that this challenge is being adequately met.
Consider, for instance, the Prime Minister’s decision to remove four MPs this week following their objections to various Labour initiatives and proposals.
If Sir Keir genuinely felt secure in his leadership, why would he concern himself with a group of MPs so small in number? Furthermore, why take such action only days before adopting elements of the reasoning put forth by one of those expelled, Chris Hinchcliff, regarding adjustments to proposed planning legislation?
If this seems perplexing, you are not alone.
Sir Keir’s allies maintain that he has consistently believed in consequences for MPs who actively undermine the government, particularly given that others are tasked with defending potentially unpopular or challenging decisions.
Therefore, in the aftermath of the welfare controversy, the whips were instructed to compile a list of individuals who had been actively orchestrating resistance to government plans, rather than simply voicing concerns.
Following an assessment of MPs’ conduct, these four were subsequently removed, at least temporarily, to reinforce discipline within the backbenches.
According to a senior government figure, “A large majority is meaningless without discipline, which can lead to chaos. Chaos is unacceptable at a time when the country urgently requires its government to focus on its responsibilities.”
The suspension of Diane Abbott was a separate decision – again, a choice made by Labour HQ, which felt compelled to act after interpreting her comments as echoing the assertion that Jewish people do not experience racism in the same manner as black people.
The message to the remaining backbenchers, as they prepare to depart Westminster, is clear: “Behave, or face the consequences.”
But have this week’s actions had the desired effect? One senior MP observed, “Many continue to question whether Keir is beholden to his back benches. I don’t believe people are constantly threatening rebellion, but there needs to be greater respect for MPs who are actively engaging with their constituents.”
Another senior Labour figure stated, “No. 10 was deeply unnerved by the welfare episode – I don’t believe backbenchers are in control, but they have certainly tasted power.”
Who, then, is truly in charge? I posed this question to a member of the government, who responded with a laugh and the admission, “I don’t have an answer.”
The same question directed to another Whitehall figure elicited the response, “There is no way of knowing,” suggesting that, even after a year in power, the government sometimes feels chaotic, with conflicting instructions issued to officials, even on the same day.
It is widely acknowledged, and perhaps unsurprising, that governing a country for the first time presents significant challenges.
Numerous ministers and staffers will, of course, loyally assert that No. 10 is now firmly in control after overcoming initial difficulties, and that they are becoming weary of the persistent criticism.
As one government source contends, “A bit of loyalty wouldn’t go amiss.” Another insider believes that Whitehall is functioning much more effectively than before. “In the first six months, they were disappointed in us, and we were disappointed with them.”
The Spending Review process consumed considerable time and energy across the government. Now that it is complete, not only have the government’s finances been determined, but so have its political priorities. In theory, as that source suggests, “they are now starting to get on with the doing.”
However, this optimism is not universally shared.
One experienced senior official told me, “A government is in charge if it has a plan, but if it doesn’t, it cedes that. They still don’t really have a governing plan, so it feels like the PM is in charge, but it is hard for his writ to be made to work.”
In other words, while the government’s objectives are now clearer, particularly following the comprehensive spending review, its plans for achieving them remain less defined.
Another senior figure stated, “They’re busy and exhausted going to meetings with each other, and producing documents that no-one ever reads, and conversations that don’t lead to anything and telling each other how difficult it is – they don’t inhabit their power.”
There is also evident frustration among government members, with one warning of a passive attitude among some colleagues, who may approach the next election with only the thought, “Well, I enjoyed driving around in my ministerial car and having my red box.” There is a sense that, “Oh, we are here just to manage, not to lead and drive, and that’s not good enough.”
Unsurprisingly, one cabinet minister defended the government’s performance, stating, “It’s only been a year, people focus on the problems, if you look at it in the round we have been very, very effective.”
Sign up for the Off Air with Laura K newsletter to get Laura Kuenssberg’s expert insight and insider stories every week, emailed directly to you.
Governments are invariably the recipients of abundant advice. In addition to No. 10’s on-the-job learning and plans to improve its operations, such as an ongoing review of government communications, other more formal recommendations will be forthcoming in the months ahead.
Later in the summer, the Future Governance Forum, a think tank with close ties to No. 10 and Labour and chaired by former senior civil servant Helen MacNamara, will publish a series of proposals.
The review will advocate for the creation of a new government department, designated “Downing Street,” to provide this and future prime ministers with a more robust center of government, enabling No. 10 to expedite decision-making and execute its plans more effectively.
While government insiders may be hesitant to embrace sweeping changes, despite their repeated pledges to “rewire” the government.
The respected Institute for Government has already cautioned this week that significant reforms are necessary if “ministers are serious” about their commitment to rewire the state, concluding in its own research that Sir Keir’s vision of “mission-driven government” appears “shaky” and that government departments have reverted to established practices.
While rearranging desks and chairs within Whitehall, whether by creating new departments or dismantling existing ones, may not capture the public’s imagination, it may warrant consideration by a government that has occasionally struggled to assert its authority.
If ministers’ control is less firm than desired, and backbenchers are not dictating policy, another significant controlling factor undoubtedly exists.
According to a senior Labour source, “People tend to reduce this to palace politics,” the power struggles between politicians, or the conflicting ideologies within the party.
Surely not, with Westminster indulging in a soap opera about the battle for the party’s soul?
Instead, they argue, “The markets are fundamentally a really major part of it – the government isn’t making challenging decisions because it enjoys annoying people, or making life hard.”
Indeed, the conflicts within and beyond the government are frequently driven by the availability, or lack thereof, of financial resources.
Spoiler alert: overall spending remains substantial, but Rachel Reeves maintains strict control over the budget.
By nature, Labour politicians typically favor generous public spending.
Since returning to power, they have increased taxes to allocate more funding, particularly to the NHS.
However, national debt remains historically high, and interest payments alone exceed one hundred billion annually, approximately twice the UK’s defense spending.
The government requires the financial markets to maintain confidence in the UK, encouraging businesses to invest and, crucially, preventing further increases in borrowing costs.
“The market is the biggest influence on them,” a senior Labour figure tells me. “It is uncomfortable for a Labour government, but none of them want to end up in the Truss situation,” where the City freaked out after promises of huge tax cuts without a plan to pay for them, borrowing costs went through the roof, and she had to say goodbye to her job in less than two months.
Within the upper echelons of the Labour Party, there is often frustration that the rank and file do not fully grasp what they perceive as the unvarnished truth.
A senior government source summarized, “The markets are more in charge the more we borrow, so people who want more parliamentary sovereignty shouldn’t be advocating for things that require more borrowing – markets aren’t in charge, but people who lend you money expect it to be paid back.”
No government, at any time, has been able to do exactly what it pleases.
For as long as governments borrow, the entities that lend to them will retain influence.
But having to be careful with cash to keep the markets on side is an acute pressure for Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves.
As one senior official says “it is the binding constraint”.
And unless and until the economy improves convincingly, or indeed the chancellor or the prime minister have a personality transplant, the markets will exert a mighty force over what they do.
With the markets, ministers and MPs, all jostling, who then really is in charge?
A senior government figure has the ultimate answer – “the voters of course”.
It was the public’s response to the winter fuel allowance decision that led No 10 in the end to drop it.
And when opposition parties zone in on public attitudes to some issues they can in turn force ministers to act.
The public’s current interest in Reform UK occupies and terrifies Labour as well as the Conservatives.
Opposition politicians might not have the power to make decisions, but the issues they campaign on along with their fellow travellers and supporters can shape what happens at the top.
As this political season draws to a close, Nigel Farage will join us live in the studio tomorrow.
But in the end, of course, it is always you that has the say, you who can determine whether Labour prospers, whether in a few years time you give them another chance.
But to persuade you of that, the government will want to look more convincingly in control than in its first twelve months.
BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.
Rachael Maskell, York Central MP, was suspended over her welfare reform bill rebellion.
Prospective Labour candidates express irritation at delays in selection process for Senedd election.
Sir Wayne David quits for health reasons, saying there is “no political reason” for his departure.
Opposition parties on Warwickshire County Council say the money could be better spent elsewhere.
Diane Abbott is suspended as a Labour MP after she said she did not regret “at all” a previous suspension.
“`