If the UK had a presidential system and not a parliamentary one, and elections were held tomorrow, Keir Starmer would narrowly beat Donald Trump. Okay, that's an extreme comparison. People do not value a foreign leader the same as a national one. And above all, the UK is not a presidential republic but a parliamentary monarchy that is not expected to hold elections for several years, unless a national crisis occurs, which no one expects. But the statistical anecdote is there.
According to the public opinion research company YouGov, on July 1st 16% of Britons had a favorable opinion of Trump while 70% disapproved of his management. On September 11th, Starmer's numbers were 21% (favorable) and 71% (unfavorable). The British Prime Minister can take comfort in the fact that, at least, he would comfortably beat Vladimir Putin.
The figures exaggerate the situation. But they highlight a harsh reality of the Labour Party Conference opening today in Liverpool: Starmer is tremendously unpopular. Just 15 months after leading the British Labour Party to Downing Street for the first time in 14 years, his approval is slightly lower than that of Margaret Thatcher when an internal rebellion of the Conservatives ended her leadership.
The Conference - the equivalent of a party congress in Spain - arrives with a very clear sound of swords clashing. The general opinion is that, barring a miracle, Starmer will not be in Downing Street when the next general elections are held, scheduled, unless there is an early election, for 2029. Some have even set a expiry date for the Prime Minister: next May. In that month, local elections are held in parts of the UK, including Wales. If the Labour Party suffers another defeat like this year in England and Scotland, Starmer will face a rebellion within his ranks that will likely end his tenure as Prime Minister.
In fact, the rebellion has already begun. The Liverpool Conference begins with the aftermath of statements by the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, a perennial leadership aspirant of the party, who has acknowledged that numerous parliamentarians have contacted him about the possibility of replacing Starmer and he has responded that "that is a decision you must make". In other words, he is willing.
The Prime Minister's reaction has been swift, stating that if Burnham were to reach Downing Street, he would "inflict damage" on the UK "similar to that of Liz Truss", the Conservative Prime Minister who was brought to power in an internal rebellion - this time against Boris Johnson - and who holds the dubious distinction of being the shortest-serving Prime Minister in the country.
Starmer's criticisms are based on the fact that Burnham, more left-wing than him, has already declared his support for the renationalization of certain public services and for relaxing the budget austerity policy that the Prime Minister is implementing. For Starmer, the UK cannot afford to loosen fiscal consolidation. And the financial markets fully share that view. On the day Burnham declared his willingness to replace the premier, the UK's debt premium rose. The truth is that the UK, like France, has no budgetary leeway. But for a large part of Labour, that is a reality that must be ignored.
The budget issue is just one part of Starmer's management that displeases the British. But there is more. The economy is not growing. The Labour Party has completely lost control of the debate on immigration. And the Government's attitude towards the war in Gaza has caused a rift between the left and the Executive.
Starmer's great luck, for now, is that he has no rival. Because Burnham is not a Member of Parliament and therefore cannot be elected to the position by his party colleagues. In fact, after 16 years in Westminster, he went to Manchester after being defeated twice in the leadership challenge by the undisputed left-wing leader of the party, Jeremy Corbyn. In fact, there is a conspiracy theory that says the Mayor of Manchester is only laying the groundwork for someone else to replace the current Downing Street tenant. A somewhat Shakespearean phrase from the Tories after Brexit, when that party burned through five prime ministers in as many years, sums up the key to this alleged plot: "He who wields the knife will not wear the crown".
For now, the crown is on Starmer's head. The problem is that it is very tarnished. The Prime Minister lacks charisma. Literally, he is disliked by his own parliamentary group. His recent Government reshuffle, triggered by the resignation due to a tax scandal of the Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner, does not seem to have created the image of a clear strategy, but rather a transfer of senior positions from one department to another that has generated the opinion that the only thing the Prime Minister wants is to change everything so that everything remains the same. The consequence is not a Government on the brink of collapse, but something more insidious: an unpopular, idea-less, initiative-less Executive that drags on in eternal political agony waiting for someone to deliver the final blow and end it.
The biggest criticism against Starmer is his indifference. His parliamentarians accuse him of ignoring them, which is suicidal in a system like the British one where Members of the House of Commons have a political autonomy that Spanish deputies could only dream of. When he was a human rights lawyer, Starmer was reputed to be so absent-minded that, reportedly, one day he was working in his office and did not realize that burglars had entered his home and stolen his television right in front of him. But at the helm of the Government, that trait seems, plain and simple, to be indifference. Or arrogance.
Within the Government, he has strengthened Downing Street's control over the Treasury, which is crucial for the UK's future, at the expense of the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, whose continuity in the role he refused to confirm in June after Labour themselves torpedoed her project to reform the UK's bloated sick leave system in Parliament.
These messaging problems add to the purely political ones. Starmer is too conservative for Labour and too leftist for the Conservatives, and above all, for Reform UK, the ultranationalist party leading all polls and which could cause a political cataclysm in the UK if it comes to power in the next general elections. "My colleagues covering national politics in the magazine give Reform a 50% chance of reaching Downing Street," commented The Economist's geopolitics correspondent, David Rennie, on Wednesday.
For now, Farage is taking more votes from the Tories (Conservatives) than from Labour. In fact, the Conservative Party, which used to proudly define itself as "the natural party of Government," is in third place in the polls, behind Reform UK and the Labour Party, and is at serious risk of losing its dominant position in British politics. But it is a meager consolation for Starmer and the Labour Party. Young people are moving towards the left-wing Green Party. And more and more workers and unionists are leaning towards Reform. When the Tory vote pool runs dry, Reform UK's leader, Nigel Farage, will go after Labour's, if they haven't already switched en masse.
Thus, the Conference, ending on Wednesday, will be four days of media focus, disgruntled delegates, and bases mobilized by sensitive issues. The risk is not a formal rebellion, but something more insidious: that the Congress consolidates a narrative of premature wear and diminishing political capital just when the Government needs authority to pass reforms.
Starmer's response cannot be to provide charisma or leadership, because he lacks them, but rather a program. And here he will make a risky bet: to make the fight against irregular immigration the centerpiece of his policy. The Prime Minister already stated this on Friday when he declared that "we have been wrong on immigration". For this, he relies on the Home Secretary, Shaban Mahmoud, another centrist Labour member, who has promised to restrict visa issuance to citizens of countries that do not collaborate in the fight against illegal immigration. Mahmoud is one of the new faces that have come with the Government reshuffle, and she seems willing to play the role of a hawk on immigration in the UK.
But even if Starmer manages to implement that policy, the risks are evident. For much of the public opinion, he will not do it out of conviction, because the widespread idea is that he does not believe in anything. For many in his party, it will be a betrayal. And for the Reform UK voters, who are becoming more numerous every day, it will simply be the confirmation that they are right.
Changing that narrative is not going to be easy, especially for someone like Starmer. But if he does not achieve it in Liverpool, it is likely that in 2029 someone else will be the one contesting the elections for the Labour Party.