The weekend happened. Many column inches were burned. “Benchmark” gilt yields rose and fell. Yet, when the dust settled, nothing material had changed: Keir Starmer remains the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

In this post, I want to explore why I believe he will stay exactly where he is. To understand why, we have to wander into the uncharted territory of the UK constitution. So, strap in.

Whatever your opinion of Starmer, he is a known stickler for rules—often following them regardless of optics or common sense. One only has to look at the Chagos Islands deal to see that trait in action. Crucially, the “rules” for being Prime Minister were explicitly enumerated when the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 was passed.

Under these principles, the Prime Minister holds office by virtue of their ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons. Whether a government retains that confidence is typically tested by a “Vote of Confidence” (raised by the PM) or a “Vote of No Confidence” (raised by the Leader of the Opposition).

Currently, we are in a constitutional stalemate: neither incumbent believes they could win a snap election. This creates a strange vacuum where confidence is assumed simply because neither of the two people empowered to test it wishes to do so.

It is here that I part ways with the constitutional interpretation put forward by barrister Steven Barrett. While Barrett is normally an astute observer, I believe he has let his personal distaste for Starmer cloud his analysis of the mechanism at play.

Barrett argues that the King could—and should—refuse a request for dissolution if a successor could be found within the governing party. However, if threatened by his own party, I expect Starmer would trigger a formal vote of confidence in his government. If that failed, he would immediately request a dissolution from the King, invoking the status quo restored by the 2022 Act:

A return to the pre-2011 status quo ante will also restore the position whereby the Prime Minister, having lost a designated or explicit vote of confidence, can either resign or seek a dissolution, which would usually be granted and lead to an election.

Starmer’s argument for such a dissolution would be fourfold:

  1. At the moment of the challenge, there is no single alternative candidate who can demonstrably command the House.
  2. The Labour Party previously argued that changing leaders should trigger an election.
  3. Any alternative leader would likely deviate from the manifesto upon which the party was elected.
  4. Current polling suggests the makeup of the current Parliament no longer reflects the will of the country.

In this situation, the King faces a profound dilemma. For the Monarch to refuse a dissolution request under the Lascelles Principles, he must be “satisfied” that he can rely on finding another Prime Minister who can govern with a working majority. But could the Labour Party actually coalesce around a caretaker? While Labour rules state that the Cabinet and NEC would appoint an interim leader, the reality is a factional minefield. With major figures already viewed as prospective successors and Angela Rayner’s position as a potential “kingmaker” or candidate herself, any “caretaker” would immediately be seen as either a “stalking horse” or a partisan player in the coming civil war.

If Starmer “flounces off” and refuses to serve as a caretaker himself, effectively daring the party to govern without a head, the King risks leaving the country with no government at all while the Labour Party descends into weeks of internal balloting. Given the risk of such a vacuum, it would be constitutionally reckless for the King to defer the dissolution request in the vague hope that a fractured Parliamentary Labour Party could suddenly find a “unity candidate” they haven’t managed to find in years. Starmer has mastered the ultimate irony: using the very protocols designed to ensure stability as a “scorched earth” policy to ensure his own survival.

Starmer knows the rules, and he’s going to stick to them no matter what. Invulnerable to anything resembling reason, he will quite happily throw the Labour Party under a bus rather than violate anything he considers to be sacrosanct.

In his view, it’s his mandate and nobody else’s. He’s going to run with it, and woe betide anybody who tries to stop him.

Chat about this and any other MMT topics on Discord with the growing New Wayland community . New members can click this invite link which will add the server to your Discord account