Top Tweets for #GettingOnWithTheJob

It is now the 2nd of June, the rain has started again, and the political landscape appears to be shifting once more. Yesterday saw a coordinated effort across much of the mainstream media, from both the right and the left, to present the latest Mandelson revelations as a moment of major political consequence. Commentators, broadcasters and political journalists appeared convinced that yet another round of disclosures would finally inflict lasting damage upon the Prime Minister and his Government. What actually happened was rather different. The public response was one of growing indifference. Across social media, political discussion groups and among ordinary voters, there was a clear sense that this story has simply run its course. After months of revelations, counter revelations, speculation and briefing, many people have reached the point where they no longer see anything new or significant being uncovered. The attempts to keep the story alive increasingly resemble a search for headlines rather than a search for substance. What these latest disclosures have revealed is something else entirely. They raise serious questions about the conduct of a senior diplomatic figure whose role was to represent the United Kingdom abroad, not to influence the direction of domestic politics. The messages that have emerged suggest an individual who had become deeply involved in political manoeuvring, private lobbying and attempts to influence decisions far beyond the responsibilities of his office. That should concern everyone regardless of their political views. Diplomats are expected to serve the Government of the day professionally and impartially. They are not elected politicians and they are not authorised to pursue their own political agendas. If senior officials were aware that such behaviour was taking place, questions naturally arise as to whether concerns should have been raised earlier with the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister. Beyond that, however, the contents of private messages expressing personal opinions carry little significance for most voters. Whether individuals liked or disliked the Prime Minister is largely irrelevant. What matters is whether they were acting appropriately within the responsibilities of their position. The most striking development over recent weeks has been the reaction from within Labour itself. Since the publication of these documents and the renewed attempts to destabilise the leadership, there has been a noticeable pushback from Labour members. Many appear increasingly frustrated by what they perceive as constant internal briefing, factional manoeuvring and efforts to undermine a sitting Prime Minister who remains in office and continues to govern. There is a growing recognition that whatever disagreements may exist, Labour members elected Keir Starmer as leader and Labour voters elected a Labour Government. Many now appear determined to defend that mandate rather than allow the Party to become consumed by another period of internal conflict. That should serve as a warning to those who continue to position themselves for a future leadership contest. Andy Burnham, along with others frequently mentioned as potential successors, may wish to reflect carefully on the mood within the Party. Political ambition is understandable. Organised destabilisation is far less popular. Members remember the damage caused by years of internal warfare and many have little appetite to repeat that experience. There is also a wider reality that cannot be ignored. The Labour Party of today is not the Labour Party of the 1970s, nor is it the Labour Party of the Corbyn era. The electorate has changed, the political environment has changed and the challenges facing the country have changed. Many members understand that any attempt to drag the Party backwards would risk handing power directly to its opponents. For all the noise generated by commentators, former advisers, political rivals and media campaigns, the Government continues to govern. It continues to deliver its programme and it retains a substantial parliamentary majority. The lesson from recent weeks may be simpler than many expected. Voters are increasingly interested in results rather than drama. They are more concerned with living standards, public services, housing, migration, defence and economic stability than they are with endless Westminster intrigue. If there is a campaign taking shape, it is not necessarily one to remove Keir Starmer. It may instead be a campaign among Labour members to ensure that the leadership they elected is allowed to continue the job they were given by the country. Those who have spent months attempting to create instability should take note. If the membership is ultimately given a choice and chooses once again to back Keir Starmer, many members will not forget who contributed to the turmoil that distracted the Party from governing in the first place. Nor are they likely to be forgiving towards those they believe spent more time plotting leadership contests than supporting a Labour Government elected with a substantial mandate. There is already a growing view among many members that those who conspired, briefed against colleagues and helped create chaos within the Parliamentary Labour Party should face the political consequences of their actions. Many will expect a future leadership team to reward those who remained loyal to the Party's democratic mandate, who focused on governing and who worked to maintain unity during a difficult period. Equally, there will be little appetite for promoting those whose ambitions contributed to division and instability. The Labour Party cannot afford to become trapped in endless ideological battles or attempts to recreate a political era that no longer exists. The country has moved on, the Party has moved on and many members are determined that those seeking to drag Labour back towards the politics of the 1970s should themselves become part of history rather than Labour's future. If recent weeks have demonstrated anything, it is that the appetite for internal warfare is rapidly diminishing. Members want a Government focused on governing, not plotting. They want unity, stability and delivery. Those who have sought to create division may find that the greatest backlash does not come from the leadership itself, but from the membership they claim to represent. Many members will not forget who contributed to the turmoil, and they will expect those responsible for creating chaos within the Parliamentary Labour Party to face the political consequences. Equally, they will expect those who remained loyal to the Party's democratic mandate and focused on governing the country to be entrusted with the responsibility of leading Labour forward. The message from many members is becoming increasingly clear: support the elected leadership, unite behind the Government and leave the politics of permanent factional conflict where it belongs, in the past.