Though not so pronounced, demand for finding his replacement who can restore the credibility of the party has started raising its head. Starmer is facing pressure from the left of Labour to change course after losing the Hartlepool byelection and a string of council seats to the Conservatives.

The emergence of dissent against Starmer’s leadership also owes to the fact that the Conservatives took the seat for the first time in its 47-year history. What has added to the injury of Labour is the claim of Boris Johnson; “It’s a mandate for us to continue to deliver, not just for the people of Hartlepool and the fantastic people of the north-east, but for the whole of the country” . Boris is also projecting this victory as Brits endorsing his Brexit policy.

The Labour leaders claim that the party was “not yet changing fast enough” as promised by Starmer while taking over the leadership, to win back the support of voters. At that time he had not only blamed Corbyn for all the ills, but had also promised a rosy future. He is also blamed for element of distrust having a wide impact in the functioning of the party. It is alleged some leaders have been working cross purposely. The sense of camaraderie has been gradually losing relevance. The process of evolving wider consensus on important national issues has been done away with. Senior leaders are being neglected. This certainly has not been in the interest of the party.

It is alleged that the leadership did not hold wider consultation about whom to field as the candidate from Hartlepool. Labour had won the seat twice under Corbyn’s leadership. Diane Abbott, who was shadow home secretary under Corbyn, tweeted: “Keir Starmer must think again about his strategy.” She added: “Crushing defeat for Labour in Hartlepool. Not possible to blame Jeremy Corbyn for this result.”

A sense has gripped the Labour leaders that if the Tories can win Hartlepool then no seat is safe. They can win anywhere. A seat that had been Labour since its creation, what the party once called its heartlands, was lost to Tories due to wrong handling of the party affair by Starmer. They allege that he has been more obsessed with finishing Jeremy than reviving the party and boosting the sagging morale of the rank and file.

This loss of Labour has been a boon for Boris. His failures have been obliterated. The catalogue of failings under Boris Johnson’s government, complacency over Covid and other issues have lost count. There is no doubt that this defeat has sent a demoralising message to the Labour supporters across the country. A fresh debate has ensued inside the party about the political line it should follow. A fear has gripped that the party, the way Starmer has been functioning, would lose its political relevance.

The leaders argue that it is high time people in the party, whether on its right or left, seriously evaluate the performance of Starmer. After the December 2019 defeat these people indulged in the game of finding fault, resorted to seeking false comfort in tinny excuses. This was part of the design to denigrate Corbyn. After becoming leader Starmer resorted to the game of showing that he is not-Corbyn and not-Johnson, and not-remain and not-opposition-for-the-sake-of-it. In the process he has proved to be unworthy of leading Labour.

The situation has come to such a stage that Starmer is more bothered about the faction-fighting than taking on Boris Johnson. The sum total of all this is that Starmer and his team look scared of their own voters. They don’t know what to do about the activists who congregated around Corbyn, so try to expel some and hope the rest will fade away.

However the anti-Corbyn leaders blame him for the present plight of the party. They argue that the party lost its direction under him. The cadres were allowed to vote for independence in 2014 braking the taboo on defying Labour for many voters in Scotland. Brexit smashed that same psychological barrier for traditional Labour voters in England, acting as the gateway to supporting the Tories for the first time. In the Brexit case, the break was even more profound.

Suggestions are being made that to win back working people, Labour should learn from Joe Biden. It is also argued that party must not simply rely on young faces, who live in cities or have a university degree or are from an ethnic minority. It must reach out to working class. The main thrust nevertheless has been stick to the political line Corbyn. The Corbynites say Labour is paying the price for abandoning a programme that was popular, noting that the party held Hartlepool in 2017 and 2019.

The Labour MP Jon Cruddas says his party should be looking at Joe Biden, who has proved able to bridge the divide between the young, urban left and the traditional Democratic base by focusing on work. It has been easier for Biden to connect with working people than for Starmer.

Cropping of such arguments makes its explicit that the party is facing serious survival crisis. The leadership is confused about deciding which political ideology to follow. This is the most dangerous situation for Labour. There will always need to be an alternative to the Tories, but there is no defined parameter to suggest that what kind of alternative should be Labour; anultra left, or a centrist left, or a nationalist, populist right. If Labour keeps losing, the disaster will not be for the party alone but for the country. The Labour party is now mainly an argument about which wing of itself was worse.

At a time when the right wing forces have been on offensive, it is imperative that Labour must evolve its own ideological line to counter it and protect the people. The appetite for change is clear but it has to be properly channelized. Just a few weeks ago the Communications Workers Union (CWU) and Survation conducted a poll of Hartlepool voters that showed that policies such as prioritising investment in public services over deficit reduction, and free universal broadband were extremely popular (with 67 per cent backing the former and 69 per cent the latter). But instead of offering that change, Labour offered platitudes and flags. Ultimately Starmer’s Labour has to pay the price.

After the CWU’s Hartlepool polling was published, senior figures in the party not only ignored this message but also publicly ridiculed the messengers. This symbolises the autocratic trait. Autocrats often do not listen to the argument or alternate ideas. It was really shocking to see that a trade union that has done so much to support Labour over the years, including financially, was ridiculed by a section of Labour leadership. The decline in Starmer’s personal approval ratings since the end of last year, and the significant growth in the number of voters that consider him untrustworthy, cannot be separated from his relationship to his own party. This is certainly a real challenges for Labour. (IPA Service)