When the results from the May 7 local elections in England, as well as the Scottish and Welsh parliamentary elections, began to emerge, there were few genuine surprises. Yet the overall outcome still felt like a political earthquake in Britain and the tremors are still being felt. What had essentially been a two-party system for nearly a century is increasingly becoming a fragmented multi-party landscape, reflecting growing socio-political malaise, confusion, and disillusionment.
For the governing Labour Party, it is impossible to sugarcoat these results. Losing nearly 60 percent of council seats in England, losing control in Wales for the first time in a century, and suffering setbacks in the Scottish parliament amounted to a resounding vote of no confidence across the country. In Wales, the nationalist Plaid Cymru emerged victorious in the Senedd election, albeit without an outright majority, while in Scotland the SNP, despite having appeared politically almost on the ropes not long ago, will continue to govern and advocate for Scottish independence. Altogether, these developments raise serious questions about the long-term cohesion and survival of Britain as a unified political entity.
If the results for Labour and its leader, Prime Minister Keir Starmer, were disastrous, they could not conceal what was another poor showing for the Conservatives. The Tories lost hundreds of council seats in England and remain barely a political force in Scotland and Wales. Instead, the biggest winner of these elections was the nationalist-populist Reform Party, the political descendants of the movement that brought on the rest of the country the Brexit debacle. Also making gains were the Greens, who have increasingly moved beyond environmentalism toward a broader left-wing populist agenda.
The electorate expressed clear disdain for Britain’s two traditional governing parties, Labour and the Conservatives, and neither can afford to ignore this message if they wish not only to win the next general election, but to remain politically relevant. Reform’s gains are no longer a fluke but part of a growing trend of an increasingly insular political state of mind, centered primarily around anti-immigration and anti-multiculturalist rhetoric and policies, with little else beyond that defining agenda.
In Scotland, and increasingly in Wales as well, the call for independence is becoming louder, more forceful, and, for many, more persuasive. I belong to those who wish to see the Union remain intact. However, when Scotland voted in the 2014 referendum on whether it should become an independent country, just over 55 percent voted to remain in the UK, while nearly 45 percent supported independence.
One of the strongest arguments made by opponents of independence at the time was that leaving would also mean leaving the EU and would likely make Scotland poorer. But since then, Brexit has happened, leaving Scotland without either independence or EU membership. Now, with Reform gaining momentum and potentially capable of winning a future general election, Scotland also faces the prospect of rising English nationalism. This is bound to reignite the debate over Scottish independence with renewed intensity.
Another unsurprising consequence of last week’s elections has been the growing call within Labour ranks for Starmer to step down. Already, 81 Labour MPs have reportedly expressed support for a future leadership contest, while four junior ministers have resigned. Such developments were perhaps inevitable. For at least a year there has been growing sentiment within the party that the prime minister is, to put it bluntly, failing both the country and Labour itself, and that unless he changes course, the party risks defeat at the next general election.
With the Conservatives at their weakest in years, and some of their supporters already jumping ship to Reform, the path for Nigel Farage to become the next prime minister appears increasingly as plausible as it is undesirable. For many across the country, even the prospect of such an outcome is deeply unsettling, given Farage’s leading role in Brexit, arguably one of the most self-destructive acts of British foreign and economic policy in modern history, and what he represents ideologically and politically. In a first-past-the-post electoral system, his dream of being the prime minister could yet become the country’s nightmare.
For the governing Labour Party, it is impossible to sugarcoat these results.
Yossi Mekelberg
To be fair, Starmer has earned much of the criticism directed at him. His cautious and incremental approach seems ill-suited to a period of profound economic and social predicament, when many voters expect bold policies and a greater sense of urgency, particularly on domestic issues. His natural caution often holds him back. Yet while Starmer may not be a charismatic communicator, he has demonstrated statesmanship on foreign policy, especially regarding Ukraine and, to a significant extent, Iran and Greenland.
Nevertheless his recent speech after the elections, aimed at saving his leadership, is unlikely to reassure either his critics within Labour or voters more broadly that he can adequately address the pressing issues affecting everyday life: the cost-of-living crisis, job creation, unaffordable housing, overstretched transport systems, and the toxic national debate surrounding immigration.
However, replacing an elected prime minister, especially one who close to two years ago won a huge parliamentary majority, is hardly a solution nor is it desirable. Britain has developed a troubling habit of changing prime ministers without addressing the deeper long-term structural causes of its problems. Since 2016, the country has had six prime ministers, averaging less than two years per leader. With the exceptions of Boris Johnson, whose government broke its own pandemic regulations, and Liz Truss, whose economic policies brought the UK economy to its knees, leadership changes should ultimately be decided by voters in the ballot box.
Starmer has done nothing remotely comparable to Johnson or Truss, and he was elected with a mandate to govern for five years, even if the law allows for his removal. The real question is whether Starmer has learned enough from his first two years in office to correct the course of what increasingly resembles a drifting ship.
I am not convinced that his policy U-turns should always be used against him. While it is preferable for leaders to get things right the first time, it is still better to have a leader willing to correct course in response to justified criticism than one who stubbornly refuses to acknowledge errors at all, provided such reversals do not become habitual.
Following this humiliating electoral setback, Labour faces a choice: descend further into destructive infighting or learn from the Conservatives’ mistakes and unite around a renewed sense of purpose. With such a commanding parliamentary majority, voters expect Labour to do what they should have done immediately after the 2024 general election and become focused on serving the public rather than perpetuating Westminster’s endless internal dramas.
As for Starmer himself, he may need to become less “Starmer-like”: less managerial, less cautious, and more capable of translating lofty promises of national renewal into tangible policies that ordinary people can genuinely feel in their daily lives and be prepared to support wholeheartedly.
BY: Writer Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House.
Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect The Times Union‘ point of view
