On a frigid January day in an election year, a former popular Chancellor found himself grappling with the challenges of his newfound, and unpopular, role as Prime Minister in the UK.

After over a decade in power, his party was worn and divided, and the public hungered for change. The parliamentary benches were filled with ex-ministers who believed they knew better, while MPs anxiously fretted over their seats.

In a striking echo of history, two ex-Cabinet ministers, Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt, made their discontent public by calling for a vote of confidence in Gordon Brown’s leadership. Their attempt at a coup in 2010 turned out to be a disaster, as the Cabinet rallied to thwart their amateurish attack.

Fast forward 14 years, and the Tories experienced their own Hoon/Hewitt moment. A massive, and oddly financed, YouGov poll predicted a defeat worse than 1997, leading to pre-Christmas plotting among a faction of Boris loyalists and Suella enthusiasts that permeated the Tory Right and even some ministerial circles.

Rather than publicly airing their concerns, a proxy war unfolded over the PM’s Rwanda bill. Sixty Tory MPs openly defied a three-line whip to tighten the legislation, stopping short of delivering a knockout blow by torpedoing the entire bill. Yet, the nuance of this manoeuvre may escape a puzzled public.

The rebellion’s scale on the amendments should not be underestimated by No10, as 60 is a number larger than the letters needed to trigger a vote of no confidence in the PM. Some rebels have already submitted their letters, signalling a clear show of strength.

With the loss of mayoralities and potential electoral setbacks in May, the Sunak administration faces a critical juncture. No10 aims to shift the focus to the economy, while the Rwanda bill is deferred for legal scrutiny. However, a government polling at just 20% lacks the authority to dictate the terms of debate.

As the pressure mounts, rebels warn against passivity and emphasise the need for decisive action. A YouGov poll predicting electoral doom may serve as a catalyst for braver moves. Suggestions include a tougher stance on immigration, both illegal and legal, with the possibility of more than 30 letters being submitted if such demands are not met.

While the political logic of plotting on the eve of a general election may seem perplexing, the real peril for Sunak lies in the possibility that some plotting factions may not care about the consequences of losing. To secure his political survival, Sunak’s team may draw inspiration from Gordon Brown’s resilient tactics on that icy day 14 years ago and start counterpunching.

In another political arena, a High Court challenge against a headmistress known as the “strictest” is dismissed as politically motivated lawfare. Katharine Birbalsingh, the founder of a renowned free school, has earned the ire of the Left for challenging their ideologies. Despite her commitment to multiculturalism, her ban on all forms of prayers in the classroom has sparked controversy, with the school facing discrimination allegations. The case, seen by some as an attack on conservative principles, reflects a wider trend where political motives overshadow genuine concerns.