From the moment the number of Labour MPs calling for their own party leader to leave No 10 hit the dozens, it was a point of no return – either to the upheaval that comes from a change at the top; or to all the stasis that comes from having the person at the top fatally undermined but not actually ousted.

It is truly astonishing that a government and prime minister with a Commons majority of over 170 should find themselves in this position less than two years in.

From that early promise it has been sad to observe the unravelling, as it became apparent that Labour had a plan to get into government but not a plan for what to do in government.

There is a danger now that a version of that gets repeated. What is the post-Starmer plan? It is easy to get people — in this case, the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) — to agree on what they do not like; it is something else entirely to get them to agree on an alternative.

Anyone taking over would soon discover the difficulties of holding together a disparate and currently enormous PLP. The best way to do that is to have your own personal mandate and a rep for being an election winner. Tony Blair had that; Sir Keir did for a while.

Governing is hard, and the job of prime minister is super-hard. Indeed both possibly more so than ever.

There have certainly been very difficult external challenges at home and abroad in the last two years. There also were in the years before that, and there will be in the years ahead.

It is not clear to me which of the government’s big problems are solved by a change of PM, whether it’s Andy Burnham or Wes Streeting, or someone else.

The British public clearly have not warmed to Sir Keir (something of an understatement). But it is worth remembering that the unpopular policies with which he is most associated were not his alone – they were the policies of the Government as a whole, most of whose members are likely still to figure in any reorganisation.

Moreover, among the Government’s biggest structural issues is having a parliamentary party that refuses to take difficult but necessary decisions to control spending – especially on welfare. I don’t see that changing. And it will become more acute as an issue with the need to increase spending on defence and security.

Meanwhile, the governing party is firmly attached to a set of policies that are harming business prospects and employment, and therefore economic growth.

It is in that unpromising context that you get rivals for the top job engaging in an ‘auction of promises’ to win support from Labour MPs and party members.