If this government was an animal, its owner would have to beware. Any conscientious inspector from the RSPCA would issue an immediate instruction, reinforced by a threat. The creature in question was ill and in pain beyond any hope of a cure. Prolonging its life would merely prolong its suffering. It should be put down, humanely but straight away. Failure to do so would lead to prosecution.
In this case, the RSPCA has no jurisdiction but the loss of John Healey is a grievous blow to the government, and more important, to the country. In a Cabinet full of incompetents and mediocrities - starting with the PM and the Chancellor - Mr Healey stood out: indeed, stood alone. He always came across as decent. He had bottom (no vulgarity intended). Patriotic, suffused with old-fashioned Labour values, he had come into public life to serve the public. He was widely respected in the House of Commons, for he was so obviously a proper person.
He clearly enjoyed being Defence Secretary. It was probably the summit of his ambition. Yet when he had to choose between duty and ambition, there was no choice. In his resignation letter, he wrote that he would never have expected to write in this way. The heavy-hearted sincerity was manifest. Here I stand, he was saying: I can do no other. As one Labour MP put it, he was the loyalist's loyalist, until a conflict of loyalties forced him to choose between office and honour. His vindication deserves all the respect which he has now earned.
So what happens next? John Healey asked his junior ministers to stay on, in order to minimise disruption. He probably made the same request to the Chiefs of all three services and to the CDS. But their position is hardly easy. Mr Healey's deputy, Colonel Alan Carns DSO, OBE, MC, has gone on record as saying that the settlement which the PM had offered was inadequate. So how could he now stay in office to implement it? He has been mentioned as a possible replacement for Mr Healey, as has Major Dan Jarvis, the security minister. No-one has questioned either man's integrity. That makes it inconceivable that they should accept the deal which John Healey could not stomach.
So the likeliest outcome is either more resignations or a posthumous victory for John Healey, with Keir Starmer capitulating. As it is, he has retained the services of the worst Chancellor in living memory. Rachel Reeves versus John Healey: only Sir Stumbler would have come down on her side.
There would have been a problem with some of his backbenchers, who would have hated the idea of cutting welfare benefits to pay for higher defence spending. Prime Ministers sometimes have to front down backbenchers. As it is, he now has to hope that the Reform candidate somehow manages to defeat Andy Burnham. Mr Burnham has shown that he is prepared to say anything which makes him sound popular. He is a man of many failings. To draw on a Marx brother's phrase, 'Deep down, he is shallow' - and not that deep. But he has not - yet - come across as a weakling. He may succeed in concealing that flaw for long enough to unseat poor old Stumbler.
If he was to avoid a crisis, the PM would also have had to take on the Treasury. Over the years, Britain's armed forces have had to contend with many foes. The Treasury is one of the most inveterate. Treasury civil servants are convinced that the Ministry of Defence is chronically wasteful. They point - and it is a point backed up by evidence - to defence procurement. A lot of costly kit does not work properly. A number of massively expensive warships seem to spend most of their time in dry dock. The Treasury top brass, committed civilians to a man, also believe that the military brass overestimate the risk of war.
In this, it does not matter what Rachel Reeves thinks. Indeed, using the word 'thinks' is paying her an undeserved compliment. She will do what her officials tell her. That is when a decent Prime Minister should have reminded her, and them, that although she was Chancellor, he was the First Lord of the Treasury, and his decision was final.
There is a precedent. At the beginning of 1958, there was a fierce disagreement between the Defence Minister Duncan Sandys and the Chancellor Peter Thorneycroft. The then PM, Harold Macmillan, tried to broker a compromise. He failed. Thorneycroft and his Treasury team, including Enoch Powell, resigned. Macmillan, about to set off on a tour to the Commonwealth, dismissed the whole matter as 'a little local difficulty.' In private, he told the Queen that his Government might not last for more than six weeks. His Premiership actually lasted for almost six years and he won a general election along the way.
There is no prospect of Starmer emulating Macmillan. It is said that John Healey was one of the Ministers who advised Sir Stumbler to stand down. Until now, the PM seemed determined to hang on. But it may now be that the latest degringolade will convince even more Labour MPs that their Prime Minister is incurable and that it is time to put him down.