Ordinarily, yes, you’re right. But Starmer has been concentrating his fire on Braverman and Sunak being weak about her. “She’s leading the party, and its somewhere nasty, and you’re too weak to do anything about it.” And that line is getting quite lot of traction in the media. He might have to fire her to avoid looking weak. Every time she says something awful and he doesn’t fire her, he just looks weaker and less electable.
Ordinarily, yes, you’re right. But Starmer has been concentrating his fire on Braverman and Sunak being weak about her. “She’s leading the party, and its somewhere nasty, and you’re too weak to do anything about it.” And that line is getting quite lot of traction in the media. He might have to fire her to avoid looking weak. Every time she says something awful and he doesn’t fire her, he just looks weaker and less electable.
There’s a lot of talk about him not wanting to look electable. He’s been accussed of priming up his post PM career ready for the general, like here - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/nov/03/labour-accuses-rishi-sunak-of-angling-for-job-after-elon-musk-interview
There’s a lot more money in the title of former prime minister than there is in the job itself.