This week, Keir Starmer got himself into bother by blocking Andy Burnham’s desire to return to parliament by standing as the Labour candidate for Gorton & Denton. For what it is worth, I think this was entirely the wrong decision.

The Labour leadership now look petty and small-minded. They look weak, fearing that a capable MP might cause a leadership challenge (which inevitably in this case it would). It further looks like a London stitch-up, with Lucy Powell the only member of the NEC (notably a Manchester MP) voting in favour of letting Burnham contest the seat. Perhaps worst of all, this feeds an already existing narrative – that has some credit and supporting evidence – that this government are always intent on removing and diminishing any voices that disagree with them on anything.

The issue, however, is there were no good options here for Keir Starmer. The truth is, he is weak and therefore whatever he did would inevitably make him look weak. He either blocks Burnham standing and makes it look like he cannot deal with contrary voices nor see off a leadership challenge or he allows Burnham to stand, faces an inevitable leadership challenge and – whilst waiting for that to transpire – has a loose cannon firing off broadsides from the backbenches to boot. What is more, that loose cannon has a bunch of other significant but currently sidelined voices who would also support him in doing so. It was something of a no-win from a Starmer point of view.

This is the unfortunate nature of a lot of politics. Decisions are rarely between matters of right and wrong or good and bad. More often, it is a choice between bad and worse. It just so happens, in this case, Starmer appears to have taken the worse option with the worse consequences. The backlash from within the party has already begun, the weakness of the government is currently being exposed and it is all rather predictable. The alternative seems like a less bad option all told.

I think there is something similar that goes on in pastoral ministry. There are, of course, those matters that really are straight issues of right or wrong. But so many pastoral matters are less clear cut and typically amount to a choice between bad and worse, sub-optimal or disastrous. Dealing with people is rarely neat and the messes they find themselves in defy simplistic solutions, usually with some backlash for the church whatever one might do about it. Sometimes there are no good solutions, it is a matter of avoiding the very worst ones.

Perhaps another mirror issue here is the concern of some elders to ensure that everybody agrees with them and their vision. If someone comes along who is a dissenting voice and doesn’t always toe the line, it is not uncommon for leaders to want to encourage such people away. That is not to say this is always wrong. Sometimes it makes sense to encourage people with views that continually butt against the direction of the church to go somewhere they will feel more comfortable, both for their own sanity and for the sake of the church. But we can’t ignore that often it is leaders who are concerned for their position, those who are aggrieved that someone would dare defy them and their vision, so they would rather shift a person on than bear with them in the church. This, it seems to me, is both ungodly and detremental ultimately to the church as we seek to build uniform and uncritical cultures.