The circle seems to be closing in on the British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer. The resignation of his top advisor, Morgan McSweeney, has not calmed the storm surrounding the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States despite his professional relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, the world elite procurer involved not only in women trafficking but also in minors.
So, this morning another significant figure in Downing Street has fallen, the Communication Director, Tim Allan. The political blow to Starmer is considerable, as it shows that McSweeney's sacrifice was not enough. The former right-hand man of the Prime Minister justified his decision by saying, "I take full responsibility" for Mandelson's appointment. Now, Allan's departure shows that Starmer is becoming isolated.
And, as is usual in British government crises, the Prime Minister's enemy is not the opposition, but the cannibalistic tendencies of his own party colleagues. With a historic parliamentary majority, Starmer would have no problem in disciplining his party if British democracy followed the Stalinist voting discipline as in Spain or as Donald Trump imposed on the once chaotic Republican Party in the United States.
But that's not the case. And as a consequence, at 8:00 PM this Monday, Spanish peninsular time, the head of the Government has a meeting with the Labour parliamentary group where many members of the House of Commons from that party will demand his resignation. Simultaneously, cabinet members have already started leaking to the media, following the pure British tradition, depth charges against Starmer. According to Bloomberg news agency, a member of Starmer's team has stated that the Prime Minister has "a 50% chance" of not finishing the week at Downing Street.
The most paradoxical aspect is that Mandelson has not been involved in any of Epstein's criminal or ethically questionable activities. He simply maintained a close professional relationship with the financier and women trafficker, which included lobbying for American banks in the UK. If these criteria were applied in the United States, Silicon Valley, Wall Street, the White House, and the Department of Commerce would be empty.
For the Labour Party, in power, Starmer's possible departure is emotionally a festival, but strategically a complex element. The festive joy stems from the Prime Minister's remarkable ability to anger everyone, with a personality that combines arrogance, coldness, and a lack of empathy towards voters and Parliament members, all combined with the same flexibility as a forged steel bar. This lack of connection has added to a pragmatic policy, in the style of Tony Blair, which has infuriated the far-left Labour faction. But Starmer would probably have gained more acceptance if he had bothered to explain his decisions to the public and his party colleagues.
The problem for the Labour Party is that the government crisis comes four months early. The reason is that the party is set to be crushed in the May local elections, and it was then, with the shadow of defeat, that Starmer was not supposed to withstand in his position. The certainty was so great that organizations hosting events in London in the summer are hesitating whether to send invitations to the Prime Minister, knowing that in July or August someone else will occupy his position.
Thus, if someone replaces Starmer - possibly his former Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner, his Health Minister, Wes Streeting, or perhaps the Environment Minister, Ed Miliband - they will find themselves leading the party to an irreversible electoral failure in May. And although they can always blame Starmer, starting with a catastrophe at the polls is not the best way to begin a government.