
Who is in charge? The prime minister's authority is in question again
Backbench bust-ups
Let's start with the prime minister kicking out four MPs this week after they had objected to various Labour plans and proposals.But if Sir Keir really felt in control of his party, why did he need to bother about a group of MPs that wouldn't even fill a family saloon? And why did he do it, just days before accepting some of the logic of one of those he kicked out, Chris Hinchcliff, over tweaks to proposed planning laws?Bemused? You wouldn't be the only one.Sir Keir's allies say he always believed there would have to be repercussions for MPs who plot against the government repeatedly, in part because others are asked to defend decisions that might be unpopular or difficult.So after the welfare fiasco, the whips were asked to make a list of those who had been actively trying to organise resistance to government plans, rather than just expressing objections.After gathering evidence about MPs' behaviour, those four were then shown the door, at least for now, to exert discipline over the backbenches.A senior government figure said: "You can have as big a majority as you want, but if you have no discipline whatsoever it can get chaotic. You can't get chaotic at a time when the country desperately needs its government to get on with things."It was a separate decision to suspend Diane Abbott - again, a choice made by Labour HQ who felt it had no choice but to act, interpreting her comments as repeating a claim that Jewish people don't experience racism in the same way as black people.So, "behave - or else", is the message to the rest of the backbenches, just when they are about to leave Westminster.But have the moves this week made a difference? One senior MP said: "A lot of people keep wondering, 'Is Keir beholden to his back benches?' I don't think people are like, 'Oh we're going to rebel if we're unhappy all the time'. But there has to be more respect for MPs who are actually out talking to their constituents."Another senior Labour figure told me, "No 10 was completely spooked by what happened over welfare – I don't think backbenchers are running it, but they do have a taste for power."
Are ministers the masters?
Who then, is really in charge, I ask a member of the government. They laugh, and say, "I don't have an answer".The same question posed to another Whitehall figure: "There is no way of knowing," they respond, suggesting sometimes government, even 12 months in, feels chaotic, with contradictory instructions to officials being given, even on the same day.It's no secret, and it's not surprising, that working out how to run a country when you haven't done it before is hard.There are plenty of ministers and staffers who will of course say loyally that No 10 is now firmly in control after understandable teething troubles, who are also somewhat fed up with the noises off.As one government source reckons, "a bit of loyalty wouldn't go amiss". Another insider believes Whitehall is working much better than before. "In the first six months they were disappointed in us, and we were disappointed with them".The Spending Review process occupied huge amounts of time and effort across government. Now that is over, it's not just the government's purse strings that have been set, but the political priorities alongside. In theory, as that source suggests, "they are now starting to get on with the doing".
But that optimism is not springing from every source.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, it's clearer now, particularly after the big review of spending, what the government wants to do, but not how they plan to do it.Another senior figure said: "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."And there's obvious frustration among the government's own members too, one warning of a passive attitude among some colleagues, who could get to the next election and think only, "Well, I enjoyed driving around in my ministerial car and having my red box". There is a feeling, like, "Oh, we are here just to manage, not to lead and drive, and that's not good enough".Not surprisingly, one cabinet minister defended the operation, "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," they told me.
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, of course, never short on helpful advice. As well as No 10's own learning on the job, and plans to improve its operations, like a review of communications across government that is under way, there will be other more formal suggestions in the coming months.Later in the summer a set of proposals will be published by a think-tank with close links to No 10 and Labour, the Future Governance Forum, that's chaired by the former senior civil servant, Helen MacNamara.The review will recommend a new government department, called "Downing Street", to give this and future prime ministers a more powerful centre of government so that No 10 can make decisions more quickly, and execute its plans more effectively.Government insiders may not have appetite for any big bang changes, although they have pledged themselves on many occasions to "rewire" the government.The respected Institute for Government already warned this week that big changes were needed if "ministers were serious" about their promise to rewire the state, concluding in its own research that Sir Keir's notion of "mission driven government" looks "shaky", and that government departments had reverted to old habits.Moving desks and chairs around Whitehall, whether creating new departments or axing the old, wouldn't exactly make the pulse of the public quicken, but perhaps it ought to be on the agenda for a government that has struggled sometimes to exert its will.
The mighty markets
If ministers' grip isn't as tight as it might be, and backbenchers aren't calling the shots, there is no doubt there's another huge controlling factor.A senior Labour source tells me, "People like to boil this down to palace politics," the jockeying for power between politicians, or the competing beliefs inside the party.Surely not, Westminster enjoying a soap opera about the battle for the party's soul?But 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".It's true the fights inside and outside the government are so often driven by cash sloshing around or falling down the back of the sofa.Spoiler, overall spending is enormous but Rachel Reeves keeps a very tight grip on her wallet.By instinct, Labour politicians normally want public spending to be generous.Since returning to power they have hiked taxes in order to increase the amount of money going into the NHS particularly a lot.But the country's debts are historically massive, and keeping up with the interest payments alone costs more than a hundred billion every year, around double what the UK spends on defence.
The government needs the financial markets to have faith in the UK so that businesses see the UK as a good place to spend cash, but crucially so they don't increase the costs of borrowing even more."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.At the top of the Labour Party it's common to find frustration that the rank and file don't all appreciate what they see as the cold facts.A senior government source summed up: "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.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
4 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump blasts Democrats over what he calls the ‘Epstein SCAM' and ‘CON JOB'
A furious Donald Trump once again blasted the 'Radical Left Democrats' over the ongoing fallout over the so-called 'Epstein files,' describing it as a 'SCAM' and a 'CON JOB.' In a late-night post on Truth Social Thursday, the president fumed over an alleged attempt to 'distract and obfuscate' from his administration's first 'GREAT six months of service to America ... the results of which many are saying is the BEST six months in Presidential history.' '[The Democrats] have gone absolutely CRAZY, and are playing another Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax but, this time, under the guise of what we will call the Jeffrey Epstein SCAM,' Trump bellowed online. 'As things are revealed and, I hope will take place quickly, you will see that it is yet another Democrat CON JOB. Hopefully, the Grand Jury Files will put an end to this HOAX. Everyone should see what is there, but people who are innocent should not be hurt. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!'


The Guardian
16 minutes ago
- The Guardian
US and Israel ditch ceasefire talks as Trump envoy points finger at Hamas
The US is withdrawing its negotiating team from Gaza ceasefire talks in Qatar after Donald Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, pointed the finger at Hamas for a 'lack of desire to reach a ceasefire'. 'While the mediators have made a great effort, Hamas does not appear to be coordinated or acting in good faith,' Witkoff said on Thursday. 'We will now consider alternative options to bring the hostages home and try to create a more stable environment for the people of Gaza.' The announcement suggested a setback for diplomatic efforts to end the relentless siege, destruction and ruin of Gaza that has devastated the territory for more than 21 months. Israel also recalled its negotiating team following Hamas's response, in effect suspending weeks of Qatar-mediated talks that had shown only limited progress. It's also unclear what 'alternative options' are under consideration. According to a Haaretz report, Israeli sources described the teams' recall as a coordinated move designed to pressure Hamas. Hamas said it was surprised by Witkoff's remarks, adding that the group's position had been welcomed by mediators and had opened the door to reaching a comprehensive agreement. 'The movement affirms its keenness to continue negotiations and engage in them in a manner that helps overcome obstacles and leads to a permanent ceasefire agreement,' Hamas added in a statement early on Friday. The announcement comes as Gaza endures cataclysmic humanitarian conditions. Israeli forces have killed more than 1,000 desperate and hungry people in Gaza in recent weeks trying to fetch food according to the UN, with at least 85 Palestinians killed on Sunday alone. The World Health Organization on Wednesday described the situation as 'man-made mass starvation' caused by restrictions on aid deliveries. Witkoff added that it was 'a shame that Hamas has acted in this selfish way' while insisting the US remains 'resolute' in ending the bombardment of Gaza, though American officials have consistently attributed negotiation failures to the Palestinian side. The proposed deal under discussion would have established a 60-day ceasefire during which Hamas would release 10 living hostages and the remains of 18 others in staged phases. In exchange, Israel would free Palestinian prisoners, increase aid deliveries to Gaza, and both sides would enter negotiations for a permanent truce. The talks had been bogged down over where Israeli troops would redeploy after any ceasefire – specifically whether Israel would maintain control of the Netzarim and Philadelphi corridors – a sticking point that is proving insurmountable thus far. Israel also refuses to end the war until Hamas surrenders power and disarms, though Hamas has indicated a willingness to discuss stepping down from power under certain conditions. The Haaretz report suggested that other sticking points include the areas from which Israel would withdraw during a pause in fighting, and the identities of the prisoners who would be released. Thursday's development comes in contrast with recent signs from the Trump administration, which had been optimistic about securing a breakthrough and had campaigned on ending foreign wars. A temporary ceasefire deal was last reached between Israel and Hamas in January, but collapsed after Israel launched surprise airstrikes in March that killed more than 400 people.


South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
Israel not listening to UK, say MPs, as they urge recognition of Palestine
The UK's actions over the ongoing conflict and 'in the years preceding, have often been too little, too late,' the Foreign Affairs Committee has said, as they called for further sanctions 'against settlers'. The Prime Minister is facing increasing pressure to fulfil Labour's promise to recognise Palestine as the conflict continues. Mayor of London Sir Sadiq Khan is among those who have called for the move. A 'majority' of MPs on the committee have also backed it, according to the chairwoman, Dame Emily Thornberry. 'The UK's actions in this conflict, and in the years preceding, have often been too little too late,' the committee said. In their report the MPs said that 'some of Israel's recent actions in Gaza are difficult to justify given the death toll among civilians' and pressure should be put on Tel Aviv 'for this conflict to end and for hostages to be released'. 'It seems that the Israeli government is not listening to the UK. And while it listens to the US government, it only does so sporadically,' they said. 'If Israel does not listen to its friends and allies, and only sporadically to the US, then pressure must be exerted for this conflict to end and hostages to be released.' Chairwoman of the committee Dame Emily Thornberry has said that the Government 'must not shrug our shoulders in despair and say that there is nothing we can do'. She called on minsters to 'immediately extend sanctions against settlers' and said that the UK 'must also play our part in evidence collection, which will be vital to the inevitable legal reckoning when this conflict finally comes to an end'. She said that the UK 'must be realistic about our role' and 'our greatest power is in our alliances'. 'Whether that is persuading the US to have an influence on Israel to come to a ceasefire, or with nations in the region whose support will be vital to a long-term two-state solution.' She added: 'It is the view of the majority of the committee that the UK Government should immediately recognise the state of Palestine, signalling the UK's desire to work urgently towards a two-state solution alongside our allies.' It comes as there are increasing warnings of starvation in Gaza. On Thursday the BBC joined other news organisations in saying that they are 'deeply alarmed' that journalists are facing 'the threat of starvation'. Sir Keir Starmer said ahead of an emergency call about Gaza with French and German leaders on Friday that while the situation there has been 'grave' for some time, it has 'reached new depths'. But he stuck to his previous stance that a ceasefire should come before the UK recognises statehood. 'A ceasefire will put us on a path to the recognition of a Palestinian state and a two-state solution which guarantees peace and security for Palestinians and Israelis,' he said. French president Emmanuel Macron pressed for recognition of Palestinian statehood in a recent address to the UK's Parliament, saying it was the 'only path to peace'. On Thursday, Mr Macron said France would recognise Palestine in a move he plans to formalise at the UN General Assembly in September. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said earlier that such a move would have to be meaningful and come as part of a 'genuine move towards a two-state solution and a long-term peace settlement' with Israel. Mr Reynolds told LBC Radio: 'We are deeply committed to the recognition of Palestine as a state, which was part of our manifesto, but obviously we want that to be meaningful.