Britain Fragments After a Turbulent Decade
One element of American political culture infiltrating Westminster is a tendency to describe local elections as “mid-terms”, an opportunity for an invariably hostile public to vent outrage toward an incumbent government. In the past, these races were considered healthy release valves for radical frustrations. The most notable of them, in 2014, resulted in considerable gains by the United Kingdom Independence Party helmed by Nigel Farage, leading to then-Prime Minister David Cameron’s decision to stage a referendum on Britain’s EU membership. In the decade since that seismic vote, UK local elections, the latest of which were held May 7, have been infused with a growing degree of seriousness and have contributed to the sense of constant peril plaguing the cascade of prime ministers who followed Cameron.
The results of the recent elections reflect the British people’s exhaustion with change and their inability to find the green shoots of optimism they sorely wish to grasp in the current crop of political leaders. The United Kingdom remains a wealthy nation overall, and it is possible to visit London and the rest of the country’s southeast and see the astonishing growth of Europe’s most high-performing knowledge economy in action. Elsewhere, however, growth remains elusive, and most Britons do not believe that their country is working well. Anemic economic forecasts have intensified social competition, and a failure to address the root causes of public anger, particularly immigration, has fuelled narratives of betrayal. The resulting social fragility has fostered a sense of existentialism that surrounds British elections. Most political leaders have given up on trying to promote messages of hope and positive change, and campaign solely on stoking fear about their opponents.
The current Labour government’s overwhelming electoral victory two years ago, thanks largely to Britain’s first-past-the-post system, was less an endorsement of its manifesto than a mechanism to remove the depleted Conservatives from power after 14 turbulent years. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s sizeable majority has proved a curse, necessitating adroit skills in party management that he has failed to project. The result has been a cascade of U-turns to stave off rebellions, and much of his policy program has been gradually dismantled.
The hard choices he must make, such as between an ever-expanding welfare budget and the urgent need for greater defense spending, are simply impossible to achieve with the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) on a war footing against its own leader. Starmer’s situation has been made more precarious by high-level resignations, including that of his chief of staff who catapulted the prime minister to power. Many are linked to the spectacular downfall of his former ambassador to Washington, Peter Mandelson. Having campaigned to restore integrity to politics, Starmer now finds his personal judgement cast in doubt.
Starmer’s challenge is political and reflects the failure of British institutions to grapple with the structural challenges facing the nation. The PLP’s animosity means Number 10 has received little credit for the costly choices it has made to appease party members. These choices include abandoning the pursuit of growth-focused policies—the platform on which Labour was elected—for left-wing causes that have raised inflation and unemployment.
The Reform Party was the main beneficiary of the growing anger in the recent vote. Farage, its leader, has reemerged to harness the opportunity of a frustrated electorate. His mix of hardline socially conservative and economically statist policies has captured the working classes and former Brexit supporters. The Greens, under the leadership of a charismatic populist leader who once worked a hypnotherapist, also made significant gains and expanded their coalition of environmentalists to include the radical left-wing activists who once supported former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. The Greens’ success has been complemented by the growth of left-leaning separatist parties in Wales and Scotland, and Muslim independent candidates in England focused on Gaza. This signals a worrying expansion of sectarian politics in Britain of a kind once confined to Northern Ireland.
The two parties on both extremes of the political spectrum have squeezed their centrist rivals and caused them considerable electoral losses, but the overall picture is one of fragmentation more than a wipe-out. The British electorate has splintered into five principal parties, but Labour and the Conservatives maintain a foothold that extends beyond the annihilation experienced by the center-left and center-right in other European nations such as France. Starmer’s challenge is governing such a diverse and empowered population, with strong oppositional voices representing contradictory interests that complicate passing legislation.
The prime minister must now also navigate the national implications of the May 7 results against the demands of his own party. The Greens caused the greatest direct damage to Labour in the local elections, but Reform is currently projected to sweep to power in the next general election in 2029. Starmer’s foremost incentive as prime minister would thus reasonably be to focus on addressing the challenge from the right and the reasons for its surge, just as many of his fellow Labour parliamentarians continue to perceive the largest threat as residing within the left.
All these factors leave the prime minister in a precarious position. In a speech given on May 11, he sought to reset his government once again. Starmer drew attention to a series of policies already in train, and promised a closer relationship with the EU, without providing details. But he did not set out a compelling vision for radical change that could calm the blood lust in a Westminster accustomed to defenestrating its leaders.
Starmer continues to pursue a strategy of seeking to evenly spread dividends across different wings of the party and nation but fails to deliver satisfying outcomes for any group. He clings to power thanks to the dysfunctional state of his potential leadership challengers’ campaigns and nervous bond markets that continue to assume that any successor would pursue a more radical left-wing agenda.
Foreign affairs provide respite but also risks. Britain has shown it remains a consequential power, and the prime minister is a broadly adept statesman. The country has played a significant behind-the-scenes role in the crises pertaining to Ukraine, Greenland, Gaza, and Iran, and the “special relationship” with Washington has proved largely institutionally durable and even productive, against the odds. But Starmer’s efforts to focus on domestic renewal are being consumed by international events. Britain is arguably more exposed to unstable transatlantic relations than any other European nation, and the next two months will necessitate a deft diplomatic hand to navigate three summits: the G7’s, the EU and the United Kingdom’s, and NATO’s. The prime minister will undoubtedly argue that his existing personal relationships are essential to robustly advancing the national interest. His capacity to draw on these credentials, however, hinge on his ability to persuade his party members of the need to significantly increase defense spending, just as they clamor for greater domestic focus.
The prime minister faces a moment of peril, and a weary Britain faces the prospect of its seventh leader in a decade. The deteriorating geopolitical situation may be enough to keep Starmer in office for the time being, but it will also continue to present hard debates that he must win at home. There is no getting around London’s exponentially larger responsibilities as the United States steps back. The prime minister presides as a diminished leader over a nation more fragmented and difficult to govern than when he came to power, at a time in which the demands on the United Kingdom have never felt so great.
The views expressed herein are those solely of the author(s). GMF as an institution does not take positions.