Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited
by Gevorg Mirzayan
[REGNUM] On June 22, Keir Starmer resigned as both British Prime Minister and leader of the Labour Party.
Listening to his farewell speech, it might seem as if the party and the country were losing a great leader. He justified himself by saying he took over a party "politically, financially, and morally bankrupt." He also said he had rid it of anti-Semitism and restored trust in the country's economy, defense sector, and national security structures.
"Investment is secured, infrastructure is being built, austerity is over, and NHS waiting lists have shrunk faster than in 17 years, representing the most significant improvement in workers' and tenants' rights in a generation," he declared, adding that he was now leaving politics to devote time to his family.
However, such achievements are not enough to sway one from retirement. Despite Starmer's claims, the reality of the country's economic situation is not encouraging. By the end of 2025, public debt will have risen to 100% of GDP, making Britain the highest debt in the developed world.
Economic growth was only 1.3%. That is, Labour has failed to lift the country out of post-Brexit stagnation. And that's not to mention the consequences of the trade wars unleashed by US President Donald Trump.
Starmer also has little to boast about in the social sphere. Labour, who ran on a platform of improving living conditions for low-income citizens, began their term by cutting energy subsidies for those same low-income citizens. Simply because there wasn't enough money in the budget.
And all these problems were exacerbated by a personal factor. " Starmer is a very pale, dull figure. He's completely unsuited to leading a large and influential country. Just like a whole host of his predecessors," explains international political scientist Vadim Trukhachev to Regnum News Agency. The completely uncharismatic prime minister, who won the election solely through protest voting (when the population grew tired of four consecutive uncharismatic and ineffective Conservative prime ministers), was unable to explain how he was any better than them.
As a result, 70% of the population has a negative view of the current prime minister. Worse still, the approval rating of the party he leads has plummeted to 20%, the lowest ever for any ruling party.
If elections were held today, Labour would win just 127 seats, reducing its representation in the House of Commons by almost 70%. Nigel Farage's Reform Party would win the election, taking at least half the seats.
In this situation, the party leadership decided to attempt a rebranding and get rid of the toxic asset—Starmer himself. Even his ministers spoke out against him, calling the prime minister a "burden on the election list." He was forced to resign.
The question is what happens next.
The opposition, of course, wants early parliamentary elections. Farage has already demanded a general election. "If Labour thinks they can push another career politician into the prime minister's office, they're mistaken," he said.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch shares this view. "The problem isn't Starmer... Labour MPs only want to raise taxes to fund additional social spending. That's their choice and their goals, regardless of who runs the party," she noted.
| The problem is that Labour have been importing vicious colonists from the Moslem world and protecting them as they hunted freely among the native population. So have the Tories, though they got elected on putting a stop to all that. Leftwing lack of fiscal responsibility is considerably less important at the moment. The fact that the Tory spokesperson misses this key point is a problem for them. |
Apparently, Badenoch hopes that in two years the electorate will forget about its disappointment with the Conservatives and will give them a second chance, when the alternative could be radical “reformists”.
However, the Labour Party has the right to forego calling elections and elect a new head of government from within its ranks—through the votes of party members. The elected party leader will then officially become prime minister.
And there's already a candidate. It's even better to say he's the clear favorite. "The King of the North." That's the nickname given to former Manchester Mayor Andrew Burnham, who was recently elected as a Member of Parliament in a by-election (a candidate for Prime Minister must be a member of Parliament). This young and charismatic politician from the provinces, who advocates for decentralized government, is seen by many as the party's best hope for a change in its image.
And sociologists agree. Polls show that if Burnham led the party, it would win 188 seats instead of 127.
But how exactly will Burnham become prime minister? There are two paths. The first is conventionally called "coronation." From July 9 to 16, the registration process for prime minister candidates will take place, and if there are no alternatives, he will become the party leader and head of the cabinet.
The second is an election, which will be called if alternatives emerge. To challenge Burnham, a candidate (for example, Health Minister Wes Streeting, who has prime ministerial ambitions ) must secure the support of 20% of the Labour parliamentary group, or 81 MPs, and then local branches. Then, the election will tentatively take place in September, when the Labour Party conference takes place.
An early change of power is beneficial because it will prevent any power vacuum and ensure the country has a functioning government. On the other hand, elections, not "coronations," give a candidate legitimacy. As former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak rightly notes, "without elections, your mandate is weak." Furthermore, the new prime minister will need time to assemble his cabinet.
The main question, however, isn't when Burnham will become prime minister, but how long he will last.
After all, he's essentially coming to power the same way Starmer did—through a protest vote based on hope.
Will he be able to maintain his popularity when he needs to suppress, rather than join, the wave of opposition sentiment sweeping the UK and intensified by the escalating migrant crisis? Some experts believe this question is rhetorical.
# id) ?>
|
