‹ Back

Recent polls have indicated that Prime Minister Kier Starmer's approval rating is plummeting. His response to the Southport riots, his government's decision to remove Winter fuel allowances, and discourse that has even extended to the idea of rejoining the EU, has destroyed any popular support that might have existed. 

 

And yet, he presides over a government with one of the biggest majorities in the last century, making his position virtually watertight unless his own Party decide to remove him.

 

The reason this has happened is because, for all the opposition and animosity towards Starmer, it has not been able to organise a credible alternative, thus leaving Starmer in a position where, despite being an object of hatred for most of the population, he is winning (and his enemies are losing) by default.

 

Sadiq Khan - Same Situation, Same Problem

 

Sadiq Khan has been party to the exact same phenomena. He won the post of Mayor of London with 44% of the vote, on a 41% turnout, giving him the legitimate support of about 18% of the voting population. As bad as this seems, by he still has more legitimacy than any of the other candidates, who polled even worse.

 

Before and since the Mayoral election in May, Khan was and is ludicrously unpopular, even among demographics that could easily be assumed to be supportive of him (Asian/Muslim groups). Much like Starmer, he wields a level of real-world authority that far exceeds the direct support that he can actually create.

 

And much like Starmer, it is for the same reason:

 

The Failure of the 'Opposition'

 

The opposition to both Starmer and Khan focusses the overwhelming majority of their energy into crusading against all the negatives of both the Labour Party and those individuals. But crucially, they rarely, if ever, articulate what they would do differently, or offer a solution of their own. In most cases, it is because they don't actually have one.

 

Since the Southport riots, there have been an endless number of leaders and prominent 'influencers' on the right calling for the removal of Kier Starmer, but not one of those people can offer themselves as a replacement, or even present an alternative. Even Farage, the leader of Reform UK, bases his entire policy and platform on being 'against' the current establishment, and when you examine his party and its policies, it becomes clear that it actually offers the public nothing different to what Starmer, Sunak and the like are already doing.

 

The same is true of the campaigns against Sadiq Khan. They try to unify people on the basis of opposition to Khan, but it is ultimately pointless unless those campaigns can offer some kind of alternative. The Conservatives campaigned against Khan on the basis of his expansion of the ULEZ (Ultra Low Emissions Zon) scheme in London, ignoring the fact that it was actually the Conservatives who implemented the scheme in the first place. They might ignore it, but the voter won't.

 

When you leave the realm of electoral politics and move into the realm of 'street campaigners' and social media 'influencers' the issue becomes even more obvious. The likes of Stephen Lennon (Tommy Robinson) relentless drum up opposition to Starmer and his ilk, but can't even offer a legitimate political organisation to counter him, let alone a set of coherent principles. And the few legitimate politicians they do attract, like Lawrence Fox, are totally unelectable due to their complete lack of personal dignity.

 

As much as the opposition to Starmer and his Party grows day by day, he is still comfortably in a position whereby he wins by default. The default being that his enemies cannot present a coherent alternative.

 

What is the solution?

 

The inability to challenge the system is not a question of support - we already know that most people are opposed to it. It is a question of organisation. We must present a coherent set of principles that function as a true ideological alternative to the current order. Not a person. Not a leader. An ideology of which leadership is simply a function, not an individual. We must also actively avoid incorporating prominent figures into this alternative, until they are at least prepared to work for such a solution. If they do not agree with the solution being presented by ourselves, then they must be challenged to present an alternative, and if they cannot do that, they they cannot be deferred to or given the power of decision.

 

It is entirely possible to achieve a revolution against the current order, it is purely a question of transforming the energy of 'anti' politics into energy behind a new vision for the world of tomorrow.

 

By Alek Yerbury

 

Party Leader