Washington D.C : If, as betting markets suggest, Britain replaces its prime minister again this year, the country will have had seven leaders in a decade. For a government elected 18 months ago on promises of stability and growth, that’s a troubling prospect. For the country’s long-suffering voters, it would be more troubling still.
Such churn signals failures of leadership selection and strategy in office. A weakened prime minister and Labour Party now face a defining choice: reassert a disciplined governing project or drift in ways that may empower Nigel Farage’s Reform UK and other extremists.
The danger for Keir Starmer is real. A recent Politico poll found 52% of Britons think he should resign over the appointment of Peter Mandelson as US ambassador despite Mandelson’s past associations with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The fallout has already cost Starmer a chief of staff (Morgan McSweeney), communications director (Tim Allan) and cabinet secretary (Chris Wormald). Mandelson was arrested Monday on suspicion of disclosing confidential government information to Epstein during his previous period as a government minister.
Yet the backlash is about much more. Nearly half of those who want Starmer to resign cite reasons beyond Mandelson. Voters were already doubtful that his government could impose direction on a country wrestling with multiple challenges, including slow growth, a tax burden that is driving young people and the wealthy to leave, and deeply strained public services. More than 10% of working-age Britons now receive some form of incapacity benefit, a fact with enormous fiscal and fairness ramifications.
To his credit, Starmer has taken overdue steps to reform Britain’s hidebound planning policies, expand apprenticeships and boost civilian nuclear energy. But his efforts are often undermined by equivocation, poor policy design and glacial implementation. His pre-election pledges to avoid worsening the tax burden gave way to incremental increases that have complicated the system and crushed business confidence. A government that promised 1.5 million new homes this Parliament — arguably its most important single policy — has presided over declining new supply.
The upshot is that polling suggests Reform would win an outright majority if elections were held now. Critics rightly say that Farage & Co. channel discontent while offering little more than vague slogans. But that indictment can’t be an excuse for failures of governance. Across Western democracies, populist parties advance when mainstream politicians lack purpose and competence.
Starmer now has little margin for error. For many, the Mandelson affair (along with the arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor over similar allegations) confirms a pervasive sense that politics exists to serve insiders. Further disclosures could prolong the controversy and deepen the damage. Should Labour do as poorly as expected in May’s local elections, calls for new leadership will get louder.
At a minimum, Starmer must be transparent about the vetting of Mandelson (and other controversial appointments). But if he wants to assert real leadership, he’ll need to go much further — both to communicate a governing vision beyond “for the working people” platitudes and bend his party and institutions in delivering it.
Three essential goals rise or fall together: building more homes, encouraging investment through tax and regulatory policy, and getting more people off long-term benefits into work. Such an agenda isn’t earth-shattering. But it would show that Starmer can still impose direction, deliver tangible public benefits and transcend his party’s exhausted ideas.
If Labour responds to this moment with more of the same, it won’t just lose its leader. It will further diminish its own authority, making Reform look coherent and appealing by comparison.
This report is auto-generated from Bloomberg news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
Also Read : Starmer’s ‘Love Actually’ moment with Trump may never come