Chris Mason

And, of course, in that scenario where he had a choice as to whether or not to stand and in so doing would determine whether or not there was a contest, clearly there's an alternative scenario where there is more than one challenger to Keir Starmer.

In other words, a contest is guaranteed.

But in that scenario, he could choose to avoid a contest where arguably you'd be choosing to avoid the kind of rupture, chaos, whatever, of what would then follow.

The counter argument, of course, is that the Labour Party and the wider country would get a greater sense of what the wannabes were standing for.

I'm just trying to think of historical precedents.

So Margaret Thatcher fought the leadership challenge.

Well, there was a leadership challenge before that.

That was the stalking horse one that was never going to win.

But then she fought the leadership challenge and only pulled out after the first round of votes showed that she hadn't won convincingly enough to stay in office.

Now, of course, this is a different process for the Labour leadership contest, but...

Yes.

She fought.

She didn't say, oh, you're challenging me, I'll go.

No, no, completely.

And of course, that points, obviously, as you say, the sort of contest rules are different and it's a different generation and all of that.

But that points to a nuance where you can make it clear in advance that you're going to fight and you're going to stand and do, but not necessarily challenge.

run the thing all the way through.

And as I say, over and above the political imperative that there's certain things you do have to say whilst you're still in office, it's sort of binary.

There is also the psychological thing.

We saw this playing out in the Labour Party after the elections last month, that it is one thing imagining a scenario.