Yesterday, reports emerged that some members of the Cabinet are pressuring Keir Starmer to sack Wes Streeting for alleged disloyalty. They have no doubt been inspired by Kemi Badenoch’s show of strength in dismissing Robert Jenrick from the Shadow Cabinet and the Conservative Party after she received credible evidence that he was planning to defect to Reform.

Badenoch pulled the rug from under Jenrick, allowing her to frame his departure as naked political self-interest. The leaking of Jenrick’s resignation speech, just before he was due to give it, temporarily derailed his press conference with Nigel Farage. After the positive PR she received, it’s easy to see why Labour cabinet members are tempted.

Yet, the circumstances are not the same for Starmer. In typical Westminster fashion, to think in terms of short-term visuals rather than longer-term consequences, if the PM tried to sack the Health Secretary at this juncture, it would surely backfire.

There is no clear case that Streeting has done anything that is sackable for a start. He has pushed boundaries in his public reflections on the performance of the government, most recently decrying the culture of U-turns that is coming to define Starmer’s premiership. But he has been careful not to brazenly attack the leadership in direct terms. He is certainly not planning to defect to another party, and that’s where the Jenrick comparison falls flat.

Even in the short term, sacking Streeting would look incredibly thin-skinned and weak on Starmer’s part. Streeting’s criticisms are often fair and widely shared assessments of the government’s performance. They are not unreasonable, personal attacks, and more reflect an attempt to read the country’s political mood. These are less criticisms of policy than of modes of delivery. A stronger prime minister would learn from this criticism and do better, implementing changes to improve upon his performance, rather than shoot the messenger.

If the past is any example, then it has shown that a strong leader should be able to contain his rivals. Tony Blair managed to hold down Gordon Brown’s leadership ambitions for a decade. While the tensions between the two could be incredibly fierce, Blair did not sack Brown, recognising his talents as one of his most formidable ministers.

In this government, Wes Streeting is arguably one of its best performers and probably its best communicator. His NHS plans have balanced the need for reform, while also recognising the limited financial and political freedom that he has. It would have been absurd to think that 18 months into the New Labour government, there would have been serious discussions about Blair sacking Brown because the latter so obviously had his eventual sights on Blair’s job. It is equally absurd now.

The best example of a Labour leader who could manage his rivals was probably Harold Wilson. Wilson led governments in which at least six of his Cabinet ministers at any time would have been plausible challengers to him. In those days, the Labour leadership was constitutionally open to challenge on an annual basis. Yet, in his 13 years as Labour leader, Harold Wilson never faced a leadership challenge, a testament to his great skill as a party manager — a skill which Keir Starmer so obviously lacks.

It is also not clear why sacking Streeting would protect Starmer from a leadership challenge. It would surely only empower him. He would be freed from collective Cabinet responsibility and could launch more direct attacks on the government’s policies and approach. He would be able to plot more openly against Starmer, steadily gathering those 80 signatures needed to force Starmer to fight for his leadership before a disheartened Labour membership.

Calls for the removal of the Streeting are symptomatic of the brittle sectarianism that has characterised Starmer’s leadership. Ever since his early days at the helm, Starmer has faced internal challenges to his leadership, and he has often ostracised the orchestrators. It is not the behaviour of confident leadership. Instead, he should learn from Labour prime ministers before him. Removing Streeting does not neutralise him; it emancipates him.

---

Richard Johnson is a Senior Lecturer in Politics at Queen Mary University of London.

richardmarcj

---