Battered but still standing, the British Prime Minister lacks a credible opponent – while the electorate, fed up with the crisis, continues to demand change.
Britain has had eight Prime Ministers this century, most serving after Brexit and for an average of two years. Sir Keir Starmer is very unpopular with the public (and some in his own party) and they want him to resign.
This is not Starmer’s first challenge, but Labour’s decline in recent local elections – for English councils, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly – is bruising.
For the first time ever, Labor lost control of Wales, one of its traditional constituencies. Despite finishing second alongside Reform in Scotland, it was their worst ever result north of the border. In England, Labor lost almost 1,500 councilors in different parts of the country to parties of the left and the right.
Calls for Starmer’s resignation grew before the King’s Speech reopened Parliament. An anonymous MP, Sarah West, offered to challenge Starmer if no one else would. He eventually backed his promise, but around 90 of Labour’s 400 MPs wanted Starmer to go or initiate a leadership change. However, more than 100 MPs publicly supported him.
So far, no leadership challenge has emerged, but potential challengers have made their moves. Wes Streeting has resigned as health secretary and, without any support to oppose Starmer himself, is now backing Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Manchester, who plans to run for Parliament again. One MP has voluntarily given up his seat to Burnham to do just that. More quietly, former Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner has also hinted at a challenge, and the left wing of Labor wants former party leader Ed Miliband to run.
But why does Starmer stay and why do Britons feel the urge to continue to replace their leaders? A few things are important here.
First, there is no obvious alternative to Starmer within the Labor Party. Andy Burnham would lose the general election. Wes Streeting, on the far right of the party, would lose the membership vote. Angela Rayner is not popular with many British voters, and Ed Miliband has already lost the election as leader (with the British media being very harsh on him and his family).
The stubbornness of the election is also an example. Beyond the headlines, Labour’s health is better than it seems.
The Green Party, opposing Labor from the left, did poorly in these elections. Much of that had to do with recent feuds within the party and its controversial leader, Zack Polanski. Although the separatists won in Scotland and Wales, it was not due to any desire for independence. The SNP remains unpopular in Scotland (perhaps more so than Labour), but the unionist vote was deeply divided.
On the right, Reform also performed poorly and appears to have peaked. While Reform won the most councilors and came second in Wales, its share of the vote was below last year’s election. Also, the increase in the number of voters seemed to work against Nigel Farage’s party. Reform won only in areas that voted for Brexit and has yet to attract any new voters. In other parts of the country, their vote did not reach more than 10%.
If translated into a General Election, Reform would be greatly missed by many. Some estimates show that it would need to increase its share of the vote by 22 points to win any sort of leading majority. For that to happen, either the Conservatives or Labor (or both) would have to see their votes collapse, or the split in the electorate would need to spread across the board.
So far, the conservative vote has proved remarkably stubborn, as has the Liberal Democrats’ party. Labor is also clinging to around 20% of the electorate, according to the poll. As for the Greens, they did particularly well among students – a small slice of the electorate – and urban women.
Furthermore, Farage is not popular with British voters. In every head-to-head poll with Starmer – and all other party leaders – Farage lost. The British do not elect the Prime Minister directly, but they vote for who will be living in 10 Downing Street. So, while Reform has led the election for over a year now, it is losing support and Farage is out.
That brings us to the Britons themselves. Why, indeed, are the British impatient with their leadership this century? Their desire to kill themselves is very misunderstood.
It is worth noting that a hundred years ago, from 1900-1926, Britain also went through eight Prime Ministers in quick succession (from three different parties). There are some parallels, although the times were very different. As Winston Churchill quipped about in the early 20th century, “The market was free, the slaves were free, and the conscience was free.” But hunger, poverty, and cold were also useless, and people wanted something more than freedom.”
In Britain today, people want something more. After the financial crash of 2008, austerity, Brexit, COVID-19, and the recent cost of living crisis, the British public is tired and impatient.
But unlike then, there is no new intellectual way of dealing with today’s economic problems (mainly due to Brexit). Instead, there are demagogues and populists, shouting their empty promises and muddying the waters.
Starmer may be famous, but the sad truth is anyone else. Britain is about to become ungovernable because the population is impatient. They want to see the government work harder, as Starmer promised it would.
Britain needs to have an honest conversation with itself about where it is going and how it will get there. To unite the kingdom, the British need something more than the Football World Cup and the TV show Amandaland.
This article was published by Russia in International Affairs.
