Britain’s political tectonic plates are shifting again, though this time the movement isn’t revolutionary – it’s gravitational. After fourteen years of Conservative decay and a brief, disastrous flirtation with libertarian delusion, the electorate is crawling back toward stability like a hungover reveller seeking the cool side of the pillow. Starmer, ever the careful solicitor, has sensed the moment perfectly. He’s dull, deliberate, and disinclined to frighten the horses – which is precisely what Britain wants.
His strategy is almost Machiavellian in its restraint. He’s not attacking Reform because he doesn’t need to. Reform’s existence is the demolition crew. Every time Farage opens his mouth, another few bricks fall from the Tory wall. His policies – mass deportations, fantasy tax cuts, anti–Net Zero gibberish – can’t survive arithmetic, let alone reality. Yet for now, Labour’s best move is to let the wrecking ball swing. Farage is doing Starmer’s work for him.
Reform will implode long before the next general election. Its coalition of the aggrieved is held together only by fury. When scrutiny arrives – costings, legality, practicality – the fantasy collapses. The “common sense” they preach turns out to be nonsense on stilts. The party will consume itself in betrayal narratives, and by the time ballots are printed, it’ll be a spent force – noisy but irrelevant.
Meanwhile, Kemi Badenoch is chasing them into the abyss, mistaking the echo chamber for the electorate. Every time she borrows Farage’s rhetoric, she validates him and exposes her own desperation. She’s leading the Tories into an identity crisis from which they may not recover – torn between nostalgia and nihilism, unsure whether they’re a party of government or a podcast.
It’s a tragic fall for what was once the most formidable election-winning machine in Western democracy. The Tories’ genius lay not in ideology but adaptability. They could reinvent themselves faster than their opponents could define them – Disraeli’s paternalism, Baldwin’s calm, Macmillan’s modernity, Thatcher’s conviction, Cameron’s rebrand. They never needed to be loved, only trusted. When times were good, they took credit; when times were bad, they promised order. Their strength was pragmatism wrapped in patriotism – a party that sniffed the public mood before the public could articulate it.
That instinct has gone. Brexit and the culture wars killed it. Today’s Conservatives mistake volume for vision, grievance for grit, and populism for patriotism. They no longer read the country – they shout at it.
And there sits Starmer, saying very little, moving very slowly, watching his opponents destroy each other. He’s playing for history, not headlines. The Corbynites can scream betrayal, but he knows they don’t deliver governments – only purity and defeat. Let them follow Corbyn into well–meaning irrelevance.
Yet there’s a risk creeping in – a sickness peculiar to governments that mistake control for competence. The urge to tidy away dissent, to sand down democracy until it no longer squeaks. Starmer’s plan to let police curb “repeated protests” isn’t about law and order; it’s about optics. He’s so terrified of appearing radical that he’s begun to sound authoritarian. The paradox of Starmerism is that in trying to appear safe, it risks becoming sterile – and sterility breeds resentment.
No Tory voter ever switches sides because Labour flirts with authoritarianism; they’ll always prefer the genuine article. But those who gave Labour its majority – the young, the idealists, the ones who still believe protest is part of democracy – may simply drift away. Disillusion doesn’t march; it stays home.
Starmer’s caution won him the crown, but if he confuses stillness with strength, he’ll lose the kingdom. Britain doesn’t crave spectacle – it craves fairness. And you can’t claim to champion free speech while throttling the means by which ordinary people exercise it.
So yes, the old order is collapsing. Reform consumes the Tories; Corbyn drains the far left. And when the shouting dies down, Starmer may still be standing in the middle – unglamorous, unflappable, victorious. But if he keeps mistaking obedience for stability, the quiet he inherits may not be consent. It may just be the calm before the next storm.
No comments:
Post a Comment