The Tribune

UK PRIME Minister Sir Keir Starmer has bowed to political reality, agreeing a timetable to step down as Labour leader and head of government. The proximate reason was the by-election win of Andy Burnham. Burnham won a thumping majority in the Makerfield contest, which set up a leadership bid against Starmer. The latter recognized he could not win, as the overwhelming majority of his cabinet and the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) decided they could likely lose the next election due by 2029.

In announcing his decision, Starmer noted: “The question my party is asking now is whether I am best placed to lead us into the next general election. I have heard the answer of my parliamentary party to that question. And I accept that answer with good grace.”

It was a gut-wrenching decision by Starmer, who had revived the prospects of Labour after the disastrous years of Jeremy Corbyn. In 2024, Starmer achieved a landslide not seen since Tony Blair's 1997 and 2001 victories. He unseated the wildly unpopular Conservatives, who had visited a rapid succession of leaders and turmoil on Britain during a 14-year run that included the country leaving the European Union in a close Brexit vote.

Labour won 411 of the 650 seats in the House of Commons, an increase of 214 seats from the previous election. Still, the party only won 33.7 percent of the vote.

“Despite its huge majority, [the Labour government] was never that popular,” reported the Conversation. “It won because of the huge unpopularity of the Conservatives in office, especially after the debacles of the Boris Johnson and Liz Truss premierships. Starmer’s victory came off the back of a remarkably slim vote share in an election with a near-historically low turnout.”

Sir Keir arrived at 10 Downing Street with swirling and fierce structural economic headwinds, including the fallout from Brexit, huge deficits, low growth, high living costs, and various residual effects of the 2008 Great Recession. This was exacerbated by energy costs following the wars in Ukraine and Iran.

“A decade on from the Brexit vote, the U.K. [has] a demographic trap, and taken a 6% hit to its economy,” Fortune magazine reported.

By some accounts, the country is undergoing a degree of political fragmentation and realignment not experienced since the 1920s, with a then-sizeable expansion of the electorate and shifting economic circumstances and identities.

Following World War I, the two-party system was inverted. Labour replaced the Liberal Party as the main progressive alternative to the Tories, breaking the Liberal-Tory duopoly.  Today, Britain is undergoing political realignment, with multiple parties on the right and left vying for support

In this combustible mix is an intense and continued backlash over legal and illegal migration—including an exceptional increase under the Tories—fuelling legitimate but also poisonous populist responses across Europe.

Starmer had policy successes. He was, however, unable to surmount the febrile politics of the day. Moreover, he made a string of policy and personnel mistakes--harped on by the media, including the right-wing media--which bludgeoned him.

Britain has become use to throwing out prime ministers after their parliamentary caucuses deem them incapable of winning an upcoming election. Even Margaret Thatcher was felled.  Later, there was a succession of Tory prime ministers, from David Cameron through to Rishi Sunak, ruthlessly removed by their parliamentary colleagues. The UK has now had seven prime ministers in 10 years.

Starmer is the latest to succumb.

For all his accomplishments and strengths, Sir Keir could not face the populist rage and surge from the right, particularly Nigel Farage and Reform. This remains a test for his successor. By several accounts, Starmer failed to create emotional connections with the public as well as his cabinet and parliamentary colleagues. Such emotional bonds are critical to political success.

An approachable personality and popularity is an essential requirement in politics generally, and indispensable in The Bahamas. Likeability is critical. Without such likeability, politicians fail. Likeability cannot be taught. It must be natural.

The complaint against Burnham is that he may just be a politician with “vibes,” which is “an informal term for the atmosphere, mood, or energetic feeling given off by a person.”

Whether he has more than vibes will be seen in the months ahead. Still, if he can demonstrate the vibes and gravitas for the job, he may succeed in boosting Labour’s fortunes, which remains a tall order.

Though not as charismatic as Blair, Burnham appears to understand soft power and how to naturally connect with people. He is not remote or distant. He often eschews suits for informal wear, appearing as a political everyman in his signature t-shirts.

“[Burnham] seems to have the kind of X factor that encourages people to think of him as not an ordinary politician,” the Sydney Morning Herald reported, “somebody who can communicate with normal people, someone who can speak human.”

He will need these skills to navigate the treacherous and rollicking waters of the fragmented British politics and an electorate hungry for demonstrable and relatively quick change. If he does not pull it off, UK politics is headed into further choppy and proverbial uncharted waters.

Burnham has a mastery of social media, where he appears relaxed and uncomplicated, speaking in simple sentences, with easily memorable lines and stories. “[Burnham]...is acknowledged as one of the party’s best communicators,” Fortune observed. “The rather stiff public speaker of his earlier leadership bids has been replaced by a relaxed figure in jeans and open-necked shirts.” The contrast with Starmer is striking.

In the end, Sir Keir did not demonstrate the “vibes”, the policy reach, the communications skills, or the unifying skills needed to remain as prime minister. He became exceedingly unpopular among the electorate, near petrifying backbenchers and cabinet ministers who feared losing their seats at the next election.

He also appeared increasingly tone deaf, failing to realize that he had lost the country and the Labour base. He did not have a compelling narrative of where he wanted to take the party or the country. Starmer had a factional base in Labour, which did not significantly broaden as prime minister. His party base was not as strong as he perceived, which is one of the reasons he began to lose support early from his cabinet and parliamentary colleagues.

He was, at the end, unable to unify Labour.

Reports emerged early and persisted that he often was often indecisive. He often also proved ineffectual and took too long in making personnel, policy, and communications decisions.

This week--after difficult, but honest, conversations with colleagues--he realized he could not carry on. To his tremendous credit he showed a certain grace, putting the party and the needs of the country ahead of his personal feelings and ambitions.

Sir Keir’s decision affords Labour three more years in office and an opportunity, and last chance, to win back voters and be re-elected. The party now has a better fighting chance, but no guarantee of electoral success.