Tag: labour

  • What do Chelsea FC and the UK Government have in common?

    What do Chelsea FC and the UK Government have in common?

    Last month, Keir Starmer announced his resignation as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and leader of the Labour Party. After nearly 2 years at 10 Downing Street, he decided he was no longer the right person to take the country forward. In his resignation speech he said: “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”.

    Starmer’s decision followed months of significant criticism and political pressure from the public, the opposition and his own party. Opinion polls indicated that he was the most unpopular prime minister in modern times. Many people felt he was not doing a good enough job.

    In 2024, Keir Starmer led his Labour Party to its biggest majority in Parliament this century, consigning the Conservatives to their worst-ever defeat. Whilst he won a large majority, he only won 33.7% of the total vote, representing the lowest vote share of any majority government in British history. 

    This staggering disparity is a direct consequence of the UK’s First-Past-the-Post electoral system, which rewards parties with concentrated support, rather than a party’s total national vote. FPTP is praised for creating strong and stable governments. However, the UK has seen 7 Prime Ministers in the last 10 years, suggesting that this electoral system is anything but unstable. The turnout at the 2024 election was only 60%, 7.6 percentage points lower than in 2019, further weakening Keir Starmer’s mandate.

    Several factors led to Starmer’s resignation. A disastrous performance in the May 2026 local elections severely damaged his authority and caused support within the party to drain away. Several high-profile figures, including former Health Secretary Wes Streeting and Defence Secretary John Healey, resigned from their positions, leaving Starmer without a viable bloc of support. To make matters worse for Starmer, Andy Burnham won a landslide in the Makerfield by-election, which cleared a definitive path for a top-tier challenger to re-enter parliament and directly challenge Starmer’s position.

    Ultimately, Number 10 has become a revolving door of Prime Ministers, much like Chelsea Football Club’s revolving door of managers. Both institutions have developed a reputation for replacing leaders in the hope that a new face can solve old problems. Chelsea has had 10 managers in the last 10 years and has become notorious for its willingness to sack managers, even when they have achieved great success.

    In football and in government leaders are under significant pressure from the media, public expectations and financial/ electoral stakes. Social media has exacerbated this pressure because there are now constant online reactions. As a result of this, leaders have less time to build and are expected to deliver immediately. Football clubs and governments therefore face a similar dilemma: Should they tolerate short-term setbacks in pursuit of long-term progress? Or prioritise immediate results, even if it means constant disruption?

    Chelsea has had some success in adopting this approach. In 2021, Thomas Tuchel transformed a struggling side into Champions League winners just months after Frank Lampard’s dismissal. Chelsea remains the only football club in London to win this title. However, Chelsea’s long-term record suggests that constant change is limited. While the club has enjoyed winning some major trophies through managerial turnover, it has struggled to establish the sustained dominance achieved by Manchester City. 

    In his first season at Manchester City, Pep Guardiola finished the season without a trophy for the first time in his managerial career. Despite this, the club’s hierarchy remained committed to his long-term vision. That patience was rewarded with multiple record-breaking seasons that included  Premier League titles, domestic cups and a Champions League trophy, creating one of the most successful eras in English football history. If Manchester City had adopted Chelsea’s approach, they might not have achieved the long-term success that they did.

    This can also be seen at Arsenal, where patience with Mikel Arteta allowed them to achieve success albeit in a different way. When Arteta was appointed in 2019, the club was far from competing for major trophies. His first seasons were marked by back-to-back 8th-place finishes in the league and criticism from supporters. However, Arsenal’s hierarchy resisted the pressure to make a quick change. Instead, they backed Arteta’s long-term vision, allowing him to reshape the squad, develop younger players and establish a new culture at the club. The results did not arrive immediately, but over time Arsenal became genuine Premier League title contenders, and won it earlier this year.

    At 10 Downing Street, in just two years, Keir Starmer has led several policy successes. Labour’s employment rights bill paved the way for significant new rights for workers on sick pay, parental leave and zero-hours contracts. He hailed it as “the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation” when it came into law in December. His government has also started a national rollout of free breakfast clubs for all primary school pupils, which Starmer called “a lifeline for parents” and an investment “in the next generation to give them the best start in life”. Despite what some might think, he has done well to combat immigration. In May last year, he promised that new immigration measures would see net migration fall “significantly” over the next four years. So far, it has been successful as over the last 12 months, according to this BBC tracker, net migration is 48% down, asylum claims are down 12%, and small boat arrivals are down 41%.

    It is clear that Keir Starmer’s government has not been a complete disaster, but ultimately he has not done enough to win the electorate’s favour. However, the electorate needs to understand that lasting reforms often require time to take effect, and replacing leaders before their policies can be implemented risks prioritising short-term political pressures over long-term outcomes.

    Chelsea and Westminster illustrate that in modern leadership, patience is in short supply and replacing the person at the top is often seen as the solution to institutional problems. Short-termism has become the norm, and people are becoming increasingly impatient. Whether in football or politics, replacing leaders can sometimes provide fresh momentum. But it can also become a substitute for confronting deeper organisational or institutional challenges.

  • Local Election Results: Why Reform UK’s Local Success Is Not a National Certainty

    Local Election Results: Why Reform UK’s Local Success Is Not a National Certainty

    Much of the discussion that has followed last week’s local elections has centred on Reform’s staggering success. The party’s increased support saw them win 1453 councillors and take control of councils from Labour, including Barnsley, Wakefield, Sunderland and Gateshead.

    For many of Reforms critics, these results are discouraging. To them, it indicates that the UK is moving towards a dangerous path of far-right politics characterised by exclusion and intolerance. Several of the elected Reform candidates are already under fire due to racist, Islamophobic, and anti-Semitic comments and social media posts.

    While the results were an enormous feat for the party, a closer look at these results paints a picture that not enough people are talking about.

    Within hours of the polling stations closing, multiple media outlets were declaring victory for Reform. They were suggesting even more potential success at the next general election. In an interview about Reform’s electoral success, Sky News’s Beth Rigby even asked Farage if he sees himself as a Prime Minister in waiting.

    These results are favourable for the Reforms’ hopes of forming a government. However, leaving it at this conclusion is somewhat of an oversimplification of the results. To properly understand these results and what they mean, we first need to understand what local elections are and how they work.

    How do the local elections work?
    Local councils provide the facilities and services in your area. The type of council you have, and the responsibilities they have, vary depending on where you live. Local councillors oversee the council’s work, setting the strategies and priorities. Things such as council tax, local services, planning, local climate change commitments, and policing commitments are all overseen by the local council. Within this are issues such as roads, potholes, maintaining public spaces, affordable housing, bin collection, etc., and these tend to be the most concerning issues for voters at these elections.

    Boroughs across the country are divided into areas called wards, and in each ward, residents can vote for as many council seats as are contested. The candidate you vote for does not have to be attached to a political party, and you can vote for a mix of candidates. In most London boroughs, the council leader is chosen by the political group with the most councillors. In the five boroughs—Croydon, Hackney, Lewisham, Newham and Tower Hamlets— residents can also vote for a mayor as well as their ward councillors.

    If a party dominates the seats in one borough, it takes control of the council; if there is no outright majority, then the borough has no overall control, and coalitions are formed.


    Turnout at local elections tends to be lower than in general elections because voters’ priorities differ. A vote for a particular candidate in a local election does not guarantee a vote for the party they represent in national elections.

    ‘Get Starmer Out’
    This particular local election revealed misconceptions surrounding local elections and how they work. This is something that Nigel Farage and his party took advantage of. The central messaging of Reforms campaign was to oust Prime Minister Keir Starmer and to take control of illegal immigration.

    According to YouGov, Reform voters were the exception when it came to the typical local issues that tend to be most important to voters, with immigration being their number one local issue. Immigration, however, is typically a national issue, and so major changes can only be made through the national government. There were even some Reform voters left confused when they did not see Farage on their ballots. Reform UK were therefore able to successfully campaign on national issues to mobilise voters at the local level. Perhaps this is because they aren’t delivering on their promises for the local councils already in their control, and so stoking fear over national issues was a more beneficial tactic.

    How are Councils Already Under Reforms Control Faring?
    Despite promising to cut council tax, the Reform-led council in Kent voted through a 3.99% council tax increase, one percentage point under the limit before a referendum is required.

    In Derbyshire, the Reform-led council planned to shut eight care homes, but it was eventually abandoned following backlash. In West Northamptonshire, there has been a sharp increase in complaints about potholes since Reform took power.

    In the past year, the party has lost more than 70 of its elected local councillors, according to research by Liberal Democrat peer Mark Pack, with some being sacked or forced to resign.

    It appears that cracks are already forming, and there is a chance that the party will self-implode. Their local success puts pressure on them because they are now expected to deliver, and if they don’t, the blame may shift towards them. Their present success may have long-term consequences. As of now, there are still 3 years until the next general election, and so failure at the local level could cause resentment nationally.

    Farage’s ‘Cause for Concern’
    Furthermore, the local election results show that a large majority of the population did not actually vote for Reform. In the overall vote share, Reform received around 26%.

    Pollster Peter Kellner said that, despite the significant gains, there is cause for Nigel Farage to be “privately worried”.

    In an article on Substack, Kellner wrote that: “In last year’s local elections, Reform won 41% of all seats contested across England.

    “On the basis of the overnight figures, this year’s tally is around 33%.

    “If there were no polls, and there had been no elections last year, this year’s figure would be astonishing.

    “But we do have the record on recent polls and elections, and it seems clear that Reform has peaked.”

    He added, “Under first-past-the-post, this matters. Our voting system helped Reform last year, when it won a much higher proportion of seats than votes.

    “Its support is now at the point where that bonus has started to shrink. If more voters desert the party, it could suffer badly – falling short in many councils and parliamentary seats that it would have won last year.”

    Additionally while Reform dominated the number of seats won, Labour still had the most overall control of the councils with 28. In contrast, Reform had 14, more than the Conservatives with 9 but less than the Liberal Democrats with 15.

    Therefore, as it stands, if there were a general election, Reform would fail to win a majority, resulting in a hung parliament. In this outcome, they would have to enter a coalition.

    Historic Strides for Greens not Just Reform
    The downward trend in support for Reform indicates a potential ceiling, whereas the Green Party’s gains suggest a burgeoning political force.

    The Greens didn’t see the numbers that Reform did. Some experts have even said they didn’t do as well as expected. However, they have taken great strides and can continue to build upon their success. Unlike Reform’s politics of exclusion and division, the Green Party is offering hope to voters, a genuine alternative to Labour, and this can be seen through their results.

    Polling expert Sir John Curtice said the Greens had recorded their “best-ever performance”, with their projected national vote share being 18% as he revealed the projected national share of the vote for Britain, behind Reform but ahead of Labour and the Tories, who were both on 17% and the Liberal Democrats on 16%.

    Winning 587 seats, they took control of Norwich, Hastings and the London borough of Waltham Forest, as well as winning the mayoral contests in Hackney and Lewisham—former Labour strongholds— for the first time.

    Speaking after the Hackney mayoralty victory, Green Party Leader Zack Polanski said: “Two-party politics is not just dying, it is dead, and it is buried.

    “And actually, whether it’s here that Labour have been rejected, or whether we’re seeing around the country, it’s very clear that the new politics is the Green Party versus Reform.”

    Another incredible statistic for the Greens from this election is that they received 1.95 million votes (excluding mayoral votes). This is approximately 1 million more than their best record in 2023. It also means that more people voted for them at this year’s local elections than at the 2024 general election, which is a remarkable outcome.

    It is clear to see that the picture hasn’t been fully completed yet; there is still a long way to go until the next election, and so much can happen in that time. Starmer may very well be ousted, but that would result in a Labour Party leadership contest rather than a general election. There are positives that Reform can take from this election, but the pressure is now on them to deliver for their residents. Looking at the results at face value can feel somewhat demoralising for those fearing Reform’s rise. However, a closer look reveals that their future national electoral victory is nowhere near guaranteed, and there is still room for hope to prevail.

  • Opinion: The UK’s Two-Party System Is Fragmenting

    Opinion: The UK’s Two-Party System Is Fragmenting

    One can no longer say, with absolute certainty, that the UK maintains a strong two-party system. The Conservative-Labour dominance that has been a staple feature of post-war British politics has never looked weaker. In recent years, we have seen the fragmentation of the two-party system as people have become increasingly apathetic and disillusioned towards the two mainstream parties. Smaller, less established parties have moved to the forefront of British politics. This rejection of the status quo was further reinforced by the Gorton and Denton by-election result last week. 

    The Green Party, which has gained significant momentum since Zack Polanski became leader, won the by-election with more than 40% of the vote. Hannah Spencer garnered 14,980 votes, Reform UK’s Matt Goodwin came second with 10,578, while Labour’s Angeliki Stogia was third with 9,364. This win by the Greens is extremely significant and historic because the seat had been held by Labour for nearly 100 years, making it one of Labour’s safest seats. In the 2024 General Election, Labour took the Greater Manchester seat with more than 50% of the vote. By winning the seat with 40% of the vote, Hannah Spencer overturned a massive 13,000-vote Labour majority. It is the first time that candidates from two parties other than Labour and the Conservatives have taken both first and second place in a Westminster by-election in England.

    Safe seats have long helped entrench the two-party system. The UK’s winner-takes-all, first-past-the-post electoral system means that larger, more well-established parties are rewarded as they have more concentrated support. With their support concentrated, they can secure seats with only a plurality of the vote. Smaller parties tend to have dispersed support spread too thinly across constituencies to translate into strong parliamentary representation. It is because of this that only Labour and the Conservatives have consistently been able to form governments. The Gorton and Denton result, however, suggests that this order is dwindling.

    The Green Party overturning a safe seat in such dramatic fashion signals great dissatisfaction with the Labour Party and suggests that Britain’s move toward a more fragmented, multiparty political landscape can no longer be dismissed or ignored.

    The signs of these seismic shifts were evident in the 2024 election results. While the Labour Party won an extremely significant majority, they only obtained 34% of the national vote share,  meaning that roughly two-thirds of voters opted for other parties. This was one of the lowest vote shares for a majority government in British history. It was also the most disproportionate election ever. The result, therefore, highlighted that even though large, established parties enjoy a structural advantage under the electoral system, they are not as dominant as they once were. Their ability to govern was down to the mechanics of the electoral system rather than securing majority support from the electorate. While Labour achieved decisive institutional power, the relatively low vote share signalled a weaker voter base and a more divided and volatile political landscape. The by-election confirmed this message, as it showed that two of the key foundations of Labour’s traditional electoral coalition have crumbled. 

    Angela Rayner, the former deputy leader of the Labour Party, said the result was a “wake-up call” that illustrated the party needed to be “braver”. She seemed to voice that Labour needs to move more to the left. Arguably, the Labour Party has lost itself in its attempts to neutralise the threat of Reform UK. Reform UK continues to lead the polls with a policy platform focused on immigration. Labour’s attempts to counter Reform UK have involved adopting elements of its opponent’s agenda and rhetoric. When the Labour government announced its immigration proposals, around 40 Labour MPs raised concerns about the impact they would have on migrants already living here, describing the retrospective approach as “un-British” and “moving the goalposts”.

    Labour’s approach, therefore, has contributed to shifting the Overton window, normalising ideas that were once considered fringe and creating political space for Reform UK’s platform. This has left many long-time Labour voters feeling disconnected from the party. The by-election confirmed this as the result shows that the Greens, who position themselves as the progressive left, can mobilise ethnic minorities and more left-wing Labour voters who feel politically homeless in Starmer’s Labour. Ultimately, Labour’s core voter base has been on the decline, but this recent result only reaffirmed this. 

    Exclusive polling following the election shows the Green Party have leapfrogged Labour in voting intention polls, as the second most popular UK party. The Greens, like Reform, are emerging as a serious, seat-winning electoral force. The old left and right no longer define politics – cultural issues are now a key factor. This further reinforces the UK’s shift towards a multiparty system. In a letter to his MPs, the Prime Minister said that the Green Party was no longer made up of “harmless environmentalists”. He recognises the electoral threat Labour now faces from both sides of the political spectrum. Despite this loss of a party stronghold and calls for him to resign, the Prime Minister pledged to“keep on fighting”.

    The Conservatives are faring even worse than the Labour Party, as they are struggling to maintain support. With several high-profile defections to Reform UK, it appears that the traditional political order, long defined by the Conservatives as the dominant right-wing party, is clearly eroding. There is still time for both parties to regroup before the next general election, but current trends suggest they cannot solely rely on their traditional bases. The threat of the minor parties is very real. Ultimately, the Gorton and Denton by-election is an urgent signal of the need to prepare UK democracy for a multi-party future. Many agree that a new electoral system is needed to reflect this new political reality.