The dwindling band of Keir Starmer supporters will put on a brave face and say their boss has done well banning Andy Burnham from standing for Parliament in a by-election.
They can make the case that a Labour Mayor elected to serve a four-year term should not break their word and walk away from an important job in under two years. The public should not have to bear the cost of another unscheduled Mayoral election.
Labour needs a local candidate dedicated to the by-election seat who will concentrate on the priorities of the electors and not on their own national political career.
The Labour Party should not have to run a double jeopardy of possibly losing the Mayoralty and the by-election if the voters see themselves as mere pawns in a Labour power game, they do not want to be part of.
The trouble with this view is that the public and much of the Labour Party have lost trust in the Prime Minister. Many are more likely to see the banning of Burnham as a desperate effort to prevent a leadership challenge around a more popular left-wing candidate.
Most do not think Burnham means it when he says he wants to go to Westminster to support the current government, as he has made no secret of his ambition to lead the party.
If Starmer were less unpopular, the public might see his actions as strong leadership, but given his failings on the economy, immigration, and the cost of living, many will see this as an attempt to stifle legitimate criticism and to narrow the choice of a new PM.
Three Labour bigwigs benefit from Andy Burnham's blocking. Keir Starmer is not one of them - John Redwood | Getty Images
Sir Keir's other options were not that enticing. He could have let Burnham apply for the vacancy, only for the selection committee to turn him down.
Some would have been suspicious of dark deeds to stop him, but the Selection Committee could have set out why they preferred someone else and taken responsibility for the decision.
He could have let him go forward and become the candidate. He may well have lost. The voters might have turned against him, feeling let down by their Mayor walking out and following personal ambition more than public service.
Then Starmer would have benefited. He could blame Burnham for the loss of a once good Labour seat, and said farewell to him as a challenger forever.
Had he allowed him and had he won, Starmer could have made peace with the victor, claimed some of the credit for the relief of a surprise win, and tried to find a job to lock him into the Government.
Instead, the Labour Party now faces the problem of whether and how to replace the Leader with one of the more popular candidates knocked out.
The beneficiaries are Wes Streeting, Angela Rayner, Lucy Powell or whoever amongst the senior MPs plans to run to replace the PM.
They do not now have the disruptive Burnham around to try to speed the contest on, but nor do they have to compete with him for MP votes to get their bandwagon rolling.
They will presumably wait until the May election results are in, as they will not wish to be blamed for poor performance at the polls. Starmer has to own the May outcomes himself.
The Labour Party system gives the PM more protection than the Conservative one. 81 MPs have to declare in public for a different Leader before a contest is called, compared to the Conservatives being able to ask in private for a motion of confidence in the PM without having to agree on a replacement.
The Conservatives have wisely made their system a bit more difficult to challenge a Leader after too many changes in recent years, which did not act to save the party from a big defeat.
Those Starmer loyalists will hope the Labour MPs fail to find 81 of the same mind with an MP candidate wanting to put up in a contest.
Given the low state of morale and the unprecedented lows in the polls for a major party of government that is more hope than well-based forecasting.
Too many Labour MPs know their seats are unwinnable without a miraculous transformation of the party's standing.
Many of the MPs are on the left and would rather lose their seats doing left-wing things they believe in than lose them whilst trimming a bit to try to reconnect with more moderate or conservative voters.
The left-wing ones do not see that it is their policies that have led to low or no growth, higher prices and an exodus of talent.
This makes the civil war in the Labour Party a great worry to all those of us who just want our country to be well governed. We can see how Starmer is floundering and having to reverse the bad decisions he made earlier.
Many of us want him to reverse most of the decisions he has made, as most are bad for the UK economy and for British morale and independence. We can also see that the likely runners against him are mainly people who think he needs to do more of what is causing harm.
They want still higher taxes, safer routes for more migrants, more intense net zero policies, more submission to EU laws and rules, and more political correctness.
This makes the issue of who should be the Labour Prime Minister a tragedy. We may end up stuck with Keir if the challengers lack courage and inventiveness. Or we might end up with someone worse. Pity the poor country.
More From GB News