THE INTERVIEW

A Job Interview for the Position of Prime Minister

of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

A Satire in One Act

February 2026

CAST OF CHARACTERS

SIR KEIR STARMER — The Applicant. Former Director of Public Prosecutions. Current Prime Minister. Perpetual victim of circumstance.

THE PANEL — Three interviewers representing the British public, who made the mistake of hiring him last time without checking references.

MORGAN McSWEENEY — The Applicant’s former chief of staff, who has already left the building. Taking full responsibility on his way out the door, as is tradition.

———

[A nondescript interview room in Westminster. Three panellists sit behind a table. The door opens. SIR KEIR STARMER enters, slightly sweaty, grey-faced, clutching a folder marked “TRANSITION DOCUMENT: Things I Inherited From The Last Person In This Role.” He is nineteen months into the job he is about to interview for.]

PART ONE: THE OPENING

PANEL CHAIR: Good morning, Sir Keir. Thank you for coming in. Please, take a seat.

STARMER: Thank you. Can I just say, it’s been a very hard week.

PANEL CHAIR: We haven’t started yet.

STARMER: I know, but I think it’s important to acknowledge the context. When I walked into this room, I inherited a chair that was already cold. The heating system in this building was broken by fourteen years of Conservative mismanagement. I don’t think anyone could reasonably expect me to be comfortable in these conditions.

[The panellists exchange glances.]

PANELLIST TWO: The heating is fine, Sir Keir. Let’s begin. Can you tell us why you’re the right person for the job of Prime Minister?

STARMER: Absolutely. Let me be clear. I’ve won every fight I’ve ever been in.

PANELLIST TWO: Could you give us an example?

[Long pause.]

STARMER: I’d rather focus on the future. What I will say is that I am not prepared to walk away from my mandate and my responsibility to this country, or to plunge us into chaos, as others have done.

PANELLIST THREE: Others such as…?

STARMER: The Conservatives. Fourteen years of chaos, failure, and decline. That’s the context people need to understand.

PANEL CHAIR: Right. But this is an interview for the job you already have. We’re trying to establish whether you should continue in the role. Could we talk about your actual performance?

STARMER: Of course. But first, have I mentioned the twenty-two billion pound black hole?

PART TWO: EXPERIENCE AND JUDGMENT

PANELLIST TWO: Let’s talk about your team management skills. You’ve had five communications directors in nineteen months. Your chief of staff just resigned. The Cabinet Secretary is reportedly negotiating his exit. Can you explain this level of turnover?

STARMER: I think what’s important to note is that Morgan McSweeney took full responsibility. Tim Allan also took responsibility. The Cabinet Secretary is taking responsibility. I think that shows the kind of accountability culture I’ve built.

PANELLIST TWO: Everyone is taking responsibility except you.

STARMER: That’s a very unfair characterisation. I took responsibility by accepting their resignations. That’s leadership. I also want to be more open and inclusive going forward.

PANELLIST THREE: You said that after the freebies scandal. And after the Rayner tax affair. And after the farmers’ inheritance tax backlash. Is “more open and inclusive going forward” your default setting after every crisis?

STARMER: Look. It’s been a very hard week.

PANEL CHAIR: You keep saying that.

STARMER: Because it keeps being true.

PART THREE: THE MANDELSON QUESTION

PANEL CHAIR: Let’s address the elephant in the room. You appointed Peter Mandelson as Ambassador to the United States, despite his well-documented history of scandals, his two previous forced resignations from government, and his known association with Jeffrey Epstein. Can you walk us through your decision-making process?

[STARMER opens his folder and reads from a prepared statement.]

STARMER: I believed Mandelson’s lies.

PANELLIST TWO: That’s your answer? For one of the most sensitive diplomatic appointments in British government? You believed the man who’d already been forced to resign twice for dishonesty… when he told you everything was fine?

STARMER: None of us knew the depth and darkness of that relationship.

PANELLIST THREE: The depth and darkness? His friendship with a convicted sex offender was public knowledge. There were photographs. There were news reports. Your own intelligence services reportedly advised against the appointment. What exactly did you think was going to happen?

STARMER: With the benefit of hindsight—

PANEL CHAIR: This didn’t require hindsight, Sir Keir. This required foresight. Which is literally the job.

STARMER: Can I just say, I’ve apologised to the victims. I’ve promised to release documentation. We’re committed to full transparency.

PANELLIST TWO: When will that documentation be released?

STARMER: It needs to be vetted on national security grounds. Could be weeks.

PANELLIST THREE: So your commitment to full transparency is subject to an indefinite delay. Noted.

[STARMER loosens his tie. A bead of sweat appears on his forehead. He resembles a man in a job interview who has just been asked about the gap in his CV and the gap is actually a crater.]

PART FOUR: LEADERSHIP STYLE

PANEL CHAIR: Sir Keir, Professor John Curtice has described the fundamental problem of your leadership as “not showing leadership.” Your own Scottish party leader called for your resignation on live television. Even the Welsh Labour leader could only manage lukewarm support rather than a full-throated endorsement. How do you respond?

STARMER: I’ve won every fight I’ve ever been in.

PANELLIST TWO: You said that already. Can you name one?

[Another long pause. STARMER shuffles papers.]

STARMER: The general election.

PANELLIST THREE: With respect, you didn’t win the general election. The Conservatives lost it. You received fewer votes than Jeremy Corbyn got in 2017. You won a massive majority because the opposition collapsed, not because the country was enthusiastic about you.

STARMER: I think that’s a very unfair—

PANELLIST TWO: —characterisation. Yes, we know.

PANEL CHAIR: Let’s talk about your management style. You told your MPs on Monday night, and I quote, “I’ve won every fight I’ve ever been in.” And yet your chief of staff has resigned, your communications director has resigned, the Cabinet Secretary is on his way out, the Scottish Labour leader is calling for your head, police are investigating your former ambassador, and Reform UK are polling neck and neck with you. Does this feel like winning to you?

STARMER: I will never walk away from the mandate I was given to change this country.

PANELLIST THREE: Nobody’s asking you to walk away from a mandate. They’re asking whether you’re competent to deliver it.

[STARMER stares at the table. Opens his mouth. Closes it again. Opens his folder and appears to be looking for another prepared line. Cannot find one.]

STARMER: It’s been a very hard week.

PART FIVE: THE SKILLS ASSESSMENT

PANEL CHAIR: We’d like to assess some of your softer skills. Communication, for example. We understand that someone on your team recently introduced comedy into your parliamentary performances. How did that go?

[STARMER brightens visibly. This is clearly a topic he has prepared for.]

STARMER: Yes. I delivered several humorous remarks aimed at the Leader of the Opposition during Prime Minister’s Questions. They were very well received.

PANELLIST TWO: By whom?

STARMER: By… my team. They said they went very well.

PANELLIST THREE: The parliamentary press gallery described them as falling “like lead balloons.” One sketch writer compared watching you attempt comedy to watching a geography teacher try to breakdance at the school disco.

STARMER: Comedy is subjective.

PANEL CHAIR: Not that subjective. Kemi Badenoch appears to manage it quite naturally, while you deliver scripted jokes with the enthusiasm of someone reading a terms and conditions document.

STARMER: I think what matters is substance, not style.

PANELLIST TWO: You have neither. But let’s move on.

PART SIX: THE COMPETENCY FRAMEWORK

PANEL CHAIR: We’d like to do a quick competency assessment. I’m going to describe a problem and you tell us whose fault it is. Ready?

STARMER: Ready.

PANEL CHAIR: The economy is stagnating.

STARMER: Fourteen years of Conservative mismanagement.

PANEL CHAIR: NHS waiting lists are at record levels.

STARMER: The Tories left us a broken system.

PANEL CHAIR: Farmers are protesting your inheritance tax changes.

STARMER: We inherited a twenty-two billion pound black hole.

PANEL CHAIR: Your ambassador was a friend of a convicted paedophile.

STARMER: Morgan McSweeney advised me to make that appointment.

PANEL CHAIR: Your chief of staff has resigned.

STARMER: He took full responsibility. That’s accountability.

PANEL CHAIR: Your own Scottish party leader wants you gone.

STARMER: There are some people who say the Labour government should fight with itself instead of fighting for the millions of people who need us.

PANEL CHAIR: Your approval ratings are the worst of any prime minister since records began.

STARMER: I think what’s important is that we’re getting on with the job of delivering change.

PANEL CHAIR: And what change, specifically, have you delivered in nineteen months?

[The longest pause yet. A clock ticks audibly. Somewhere in the building, a radiator makes a noise. STARMER looks at his folder. The folder is empty. He closes it.]

STARMER: We must prove that politics can be a force for good.

PANELLIST THREE: That’s not an answer, Sir Keir. That’s a screensaver.

PART SEVEN: THE CLOSING STATEMENT

PANEL CHAIR: We’re almost out of time. Is there anything you’d like to add?

[STARMER stands. He straightens his tie. He adopts the facial expression of a man who has practised looking determined in the mirror but has only managed to look constipated.]

STARMER: I am their Prime Minister. This is their government. I will never give up on that fight. I will never walk away from the country that I love. After having fought so hard for the chance to change our country, I’m not prepared to walk away from my mandate. We go forward from here. We go with confidence.

PANELLIST TWO: Where, exactly?

STARMER: Forward.

PANELLIST THREE: Yes, but toward what?

STARMER: Change.

PANEL CHAIR: What kind of change?

STARMER: The kind this country deserves.

PANELLIST TWO: That’s not reassuring given what it’s already got.

[STARMER gathers his empty folder and walks toward the door. He pauses, turns back.]

STARMER: Can I just say one more thing?

PANEL CHAIR: Of course.

STARMER: It’s been a very hard week.

[He exits. The panel sits in silence for a moment.]

PANELLIST THREE: So. Do we give him the job?

PANEL CHAIR: Nobody else wants it. Everyone who could replace him is either under investigation, compromised, or has been blocked from standing. Angela Rayner’s got a tax investigation hanging over her. Andy Burnham can’t get into Parliament. Wes Streeting’s got his own Mandelson problem. The only reason he survives is that there’s nobody clean enough to take over.

PANELLIST TWO: So we’re hiring him because there’s no alternative?

PANEL CHAIR: That’s not survival through strength. It’s survival through the weakness of everyone around him.

[Beat.]

PANELLIST THREE: He’ll say he won.

PANEL CHAIR: He always does.

———

EPILOGUE

[The interview room. Later that afternoon. A press release is issued from Downing Street.]

“The Prime Minister is concentrating on the job in hand. He received a warm reception from the interview panel and has their full support. He is getting on with the task of delivering change across the country. The Prime Minister has no plans to step aside.”

[Nobody asked if he had plans to step aside. The statement was issued anyway. Just in case.]

CURTAIN

———

Author’s Note: All quoted phrases attributed to Sir Keir Starmer in this satire are drawn from his actual public statements made during the week of 9–11 February 2026, including “I’ve won every fight I’ve ever been in,” “I will never walk away from the mandate I was given to change this country,” and “We must prove that politics can be a force for good.” The comedy, regrettably, writes itself.