Labour leadership crisis deepens as Starmer appears to relinquish premiership, Hodges column says

LONDON — A year-end assessment of Britain's Labour Party portrays Keir Starmer as having effectively relinquished the reins of government, with despairing MPs warning of a "circular firing squad" centered on the prime minister, according to a column by Dan Hodges.

The piece argues that a government that began 2025 with an unassailable 170-seat majority has collapsed, and that leadership chatter about a challenge is largely moot because Starmer has already stepped back from daily stewardship. Hodges notes that some observers point to June 27, when Starmer capitulated to rebels over the Disability Bill, as a turning point in the PM's grip on the agenda. A former senior adviser cited another moment: the day the prime minister sat down with his biographer and disowned a controversial speech on immigration, saying he deeply regretted using the phrase that warned Britain could become an "island of strangers." According to the ex-aide, that moment amounted to ditching the entire policy and the strategy of taking the fight to the Tories on immigration.

The columnist identifies the July 2 Prime Minister's Questions as the decisive point in Starmer's slow-motion abdication. Hodges writes that Chancellor Rachel Reeves appeared on the government frontbench in tears as Starmer pressed ahead, and that the PM later claimed he did not know of his colleague's distress. The episode, Hodges argues, exposed a leadership that had lost moral and political grip and showed a Prime Minister who had effectively lost his way.

[IMAGE]

As the year progressed, Hodges contends, Starmer's authority continued to fray. Ministers and backbench MPs alike were quoted in Hodges's notebook as saying he was "not present," "strangely detached," and "invisible" to those around him. The article asserts that the PM's control over his own administration and his party waned as his aides, ministers, and trade unions grew increasingly discordant with his direction. The government began to reverse multiple policy stances, from immigration to welfare reform, and even tax pledges once central to Labour's 2024 electoral appeal.

Specifically, Hodges points to the immigration posture being outsourced to Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, a reversal of Labour's border and asylum messaging. Welfare reform, once a cornerstone, was not merely paused but rolled back in places, with new spending aimed at scrapping the two-child benefit cap and reversing winter fuel cuts. The government also abandoned a coalition of tax promises designed to protect working families and signaled a drift away from the pragmatic, post-Brexit path Labour had previously touted.

Internal dynamics reflected a party muting its own voice. Brigid Phillipson, Starmer's hand-picked candidate to replace Angela Rayner as Labour's deputy leader, was defeated in October by Lucy Powell. The Unison leadership, long a pillar of Labour's electoral coalition, was toppled by Andrea Egan, a left-wing challenger. And Starmer's chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, was sidelined after a cabinet backlash against aggressive briefing.

Inside Downing Street, staff churn and a sense of drift intensified. An exodus of trusted aides coincided with discussions about a "2026 fightback" that would rest on something more concrete than rhetoric. Yet, according to Hodges's account, ministers and MPs alike doubted whether Starmer himself would engage in any sustained struggle to hold onto the premiership. Some aides reportedly framed the year ahead as a period in which Starmer might formally withdraw from the role, even if he publicly maintained otherwise.

The piece notes that some in Labour's ranks interpreted a series of anticipatory briefings as a warning to Starmer: resist a leadership challenge, they were told, and keep fighting. But Hodges argues that the tactic rings hollow when the prime minister appears to have already subordinated core policy to a broader view that politics as a form of defense rather than reform has replaced ambition. In a telling line attributed to one MP, the direction was clear: the party seems poised to form a circular firing squad again, with Starmer positioned at the center of it.

Looking ahead, Hodges writes that Labour's current peril is not just a leadership contest but a broader erosion of electoral legitimacy. The column cautions that even if a local election cycle goes ahead as planned, the verdict of the British people will likely reinforce the perception that Starmer has lost the ability to lead contentious legislation through Parliament. The piece predicts that the country will face ongoing tensions on issues ranging from border security and welfare to economic growth and Brexit alignment, with the prime minister's influence diminishing as the year unfolds.

Beyond domestic policy, the author notes external headwinds. The year has already seen a mixed diplomatic posture toward the United States, including a high-profile visit by a foreign leader that Hodges characterizes as a diplomatic gamble. While Starmer might still aim to press forward on some fronts, Hodges emphasizes the reality that his capacity to shape outcomes is increasingly constrained by a constellation of party backers, allies, and rivals who no longer share a single, coherent vision.

In closing, Hodges argues that 2025 is not simply a tricky year for Labour but a definitive one in which Sir Keir Starmer effectively stepped away from the premiership. The columnist suggests that any formal confirmation of a departure in 2026 would be the natural coda to a year of attrition, rather than a sudden act of political theatre. For many MPs and observers, the question now is not if Starmer will resign, but when the formal resignation will be acknowledged by the party and the country. The overarching message, Hodges implies, is that the Prime Minister has lost the authority to steer contentious legislation and that Labour's future will hinge on how the party reconciles its internal fractures and redefines its political project in the years ahead.