Labour MPs are still shellshocked after last week's revolt on welfare. Some of the 126 rebels privately regret signing the amendment to the welfare legislation which forced ministers' humiliating retreat, given the damage to Keir Starmer and his government.
"We only wanted to blow the bloody doors off," one MP said, recalling the words of Michael Caine's character in the film The Italian Job. Rebels wonder whether they instead have brought Labour's house down.
Inside the government, the blame game goes on. I'm told people are viewing each other suspiciously. Relations between Downing Street and government whips remain fraught. Some cabinet ministers complain that Alan Campbell, the chief whip, has been unfairly cast as the fall guy even though he warned No 10 about the scale of the revolt weeks earlier.
Different people are taking soundings on how Starmer should learn lessons and restructure his operation. One option is to revive the post of Downing Street permanent secretary. But the review seems uncoordinated, and it's not clear who's in charge of it.
There are fears the government is in danger of repeating the welfare debacle on special educational needs and disabilities (SEND).
Ministers are likely to gradually phase out individual education, health and care plans (EHCPs), but it's a highly sensitive issue and many parents are deeply worried that another cut is being dressed up as reform. Ministers insist the mistakes on welfare will not be repeated, but Labour MPs are plotting a new revolt. Downing Street officials claim warnings this issue could also blow up weeks ago went largely ignored, leading to damaging headlines in recent days.
Some Labour MPs grumble that Starmer's talks today with Emmanuel Macron, the French president, will not help the prime minister recover from his domestic woes.
Although it's not a done deal yet, Starmer hopes a "one in, one out" returns deal – with one migrant crossing the Channel returned to France in return for the UK accepting one in France likely to be granted asylum – might provide a deterrent which reduces the crossings.
The puzzle of Starmer’s premiership is: why has Starmer done so well on international affairs but fared so badly on the domestic front?
Starmer himself has admitted he was distracted by last month's G7 and Nato summits, and this contributed to the welfare shambles. At times, perhaps Starmer’s foreign travels became a false comfort zone where he could briefly escape the travails of the too-difficult red box awaiting his return. He wouldn’t be the first PM to seek refuge on the world stage – though it usually happens much later in their premiership. In Starmer’s case, most of his 32 visits to foreign countries have been unavoidable.
The PM insists his travels do bring tangible benefits on the home front. For example, the UK's trade deal with Donald Trump saved tens of thousands of jobs at Jaguar Land Rover and its suppliers through lower-than-planned tariffs. Starmer hopes the UK-EU reset will eventually bring down prices in the supermarkets by reducing trade barriers. However, he will need more than better atmospherics for the voters to notice – with action on the small boats top of the list.
I suspect one reason for his contrasting fortunes is his strong foreign affairs team – notably, Jonathan Powell, his national security adviser, who brings 13 years' experience as Tony Blair's chief of staff. Starmer's domestic team would certainly benefit if he recruited more heavy hitters like Powell. He needs people to “mind the shop” better when he is immersed in international matters.
I think there's a deeper reason for Starmer's differing performance. He makes a virtue out of his "pragmatism" and lack of ideology. That pragmatism serves him well in foreign fields. Handling the unpredictable Trump, for example, requires being fleet of foot. Ideological baggage might get in the way.
But the domestic front requires more than pragmatism. All political leaders need some ideological roots. Starmer's seem not to run that deep.
The PM doesn't need to make a big speech defining what "Starmerism" is. He wouldn't anyway. But he does need to tell voters about the values on which his policies are built and the destination he wants for the country.
There's growing chatter among Labour MPs that while Starmer announces policy decisions without them being anchored in values, for Angela Rayner, his deputy, the starting point is Labour values that then determine her policies. Rachel Reeves belatedly adopted this approach in last month's spending review, branding it "Labour choices". But the die for the welfare revolt had already been cast by her £5bn of savings.
From now on, the PM's "moral mission" should not be vague "welfare reform" designed to mask cuts, but a crusade to reduce child poverty. Some useful building blocks are already in place – breakfast clubs, an expansion of free school meals and Best Start family hubs, a rebrand of the successful SureStart scheme. But to make it work, Starmer will need to find the £3.5bn needed to eventually scrap the two-child benefit limit.
For now, all we have got is a blank page. As one Labour insider admitted to me: "If you told Keir the next election was magically already won and asked him what he wanted to do between now and then, he wouldn't know what to say." It's time to fill in that blank page.
There’s more to the Bayeux Tapestry loan deal than meets the eye…
A small-boats deal with France would be a game-changer for Starmer – and the country
It’s time football clubs paid the price of policing matches
‘Lofty ambition, little detail’: Readers react to Labour’s 10-year plan for the NHS
Norman Tebbit was a torch-bearer for a ‘true-blue’ politics now embraced by Farage
Poll: After another AI blunder, should Wimbledon bring back line judges?
