I’ve been struck by the sheer volume of posts on social media over the past 24 hours, condemning political commentators for ‘whipping themselves into a frenzy’ over Keir Starmer’s ‘perilous’ situation. While the “don’t shoot the messenger” line is justified, accusations of ‘hysterical’ or ‘breathless speculation’ are not entirely misplaced.
The volume of broadcast footage focused on the Prime Minister’s tenure has been relentless. Names such as Chris Mason and Laura Kuenssberg are cited as evidence of a Westminster bubble spinning itself into panic. But it’s worth adding some context, because the story itself is real, and pretending otherwise doesn’t make it go away.
Section 1: media as amplifier, not originator
Political journalists don’t invent instability; they respond to signals - briefings, counter-briefings, WhatsApp messages, strategic silences, carefully placed phrases like “sources close to…”, and “unease among colleagues”.
The media amplifies what already exists. With some tabloid exceptions, serious journalists craft stories from the facts before them. However, the best correspondents have the experience and judgement to discern reality from a chaotic stream of sources, while some are less diligent in separating the facts from hyperbole.
As an older hack, I recall the likes of Michael Buerk, John Cole, and Charles Wheeler - correspondents who exuded credibility. But to be fair, the newer crop of broadcast journalists faces far greater demands, having to deliver for TV, online, radio, and social media - the most unforgiving audience of all.
Calling the coverage hysterical may be emotionally satisfying, but it misses the point. The unrest inside the Labour Party is not confected as I’ve seen suggested by many. It is structural, unresolved, and familiar to anyone who has watched British politics over the last decade.
Cabinet Unity ≠ Resolution
Much has been made of the cabinet coalescing behind the Prime Minister. That response is entirely correct - and entirely strategic.
Collective unity at moments of threat is how modern politics buys time. It is optics, not theology. So, no one should confuse a coordinated show of loyalty with a deep settling of accounts. It is a pause, not a resolution - and crucially, it is temporary.
The real pressure point isn’t personality or presentation - it’s timing: with the Gorton and Denton by-election in just two weeks, and local elections in May. These moments act as stress tests. If results falter, today’s discipline will dissolve quickly. If they disappoint badly, those circling the Prime Minister’s job will feel justified in moving.
Which is why this story won’t simply “blow over” and why you won’t see any less attention from political correspondents in the coming days.
The Rinse-and-Repeat Problem
What is exhausting the public is the sense of repetition. Since Brexit, we’ve seen the same cycle play out again and again: dissatisfaction with the leadership; paralysis and drift; pressure on bond prices; a leadership contest; a new leader burdened with impossible expectations; disappointment and renewed instability.
Each time, Britain pays a price - not just politically, but reputationally and economically. And each time, the public is told that this reset will finally fix things.
Stability as a priceless commodity
Forget gold or rare earths. After five different governments in the ten years since the Brexit referendum, political stability is the prize most coveted by British voters now.
However, arguing for stability is not the same as defending mistakes. Continuity is not the same as inertia. Governments need time to learn and improve. Who among us didn’t screw up while learning the ropes in a new job? The Westminster machine can be especially unforgiving to neophyte ministers. That is not a plea for sympathy or complacency, but a recognition that constant destabilisation prevents learning altogether. Unless expectations - political and public alike - can be tempered, disappointment and frustration follow, and the cycle repeats.
The Times’ Matthew Syed correctly identifies the instant gratification culture of social media as a primary cause of this political chaos. Ministers fret about tomorrow’s newspaper headlines, guided by advisers scanning today’s social media commentary.
Politics conducted at the speed of outrage rarely produces competence.
Believe The People
What’s encouraging is that the public response reflects a serious desire for a calmer, more considered debate about the issues of the day, and the British people are entitled to be listened to by both the media and politicians alike. If politicians gave as much heed to public discourse as to lobbyists, they might avoid some of the poor decisions that have exhausted voter confidence.
Britain desperately needs stability - not the absence of scrutiny, but the presence of patience. The chance for a government to settle, adapt, and govern rather than permanently defend its own survival. Only then can the critical needs of the country that this substack dwells on: defence, national security, and resilience, be properly attended to.
That, ultimately, is the Prime Minister’s central pitch: work with me, work with the party, and let’s get on with the job of making this country fit for the 21st century.
The real question isn’t whether today’s drama is overblown.
It’s whether we can break our addiction to endlessly re-running it - to the detriment of the very people demanding change.
Thank you Rod for making great sense of a big mess.