The recent resignation of British Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer is a symptom of the discontent that the British people have with the current Labour government, but the larger problem is that the current manifestation of the British government operates almost entirely without the possibility of voters’ consent exercising any meaningful control. While British voters may be frustrated with an incompetent, corrupt, and leftist government, there remains almost no outlet by which they can translate their frustration into an electoral victory with accompanying political control of the government.
Successive Tory, or nominally “conservative” prime ministers such as David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Rishi Sunak either opposed Brexit, presided over record non-EU migration, continued the embrace of green energy and deindustrialisation, or proved too incompetent to enact meaningful reform. Labour’s 2024 victory under Starmer expressed voter frustration with that record, not affection for global liberalism.
Similarly, the present ouster of Starmer is the result of Starmer’s growing unpopularity, but Starmer’s party (Labour) is still the majority in Parliament. Andy Burnham, who just won the Makerfield by-election and whom many are expecting to become the new Labour PM, will likely continue Labour’s leftist governance if he becomes PM. Burnham has talked about leading the country away from “divisions,” but he simultaneously denounced Trump and MAGA as “the path of a divided, dark politics of the kind we see in the United States.” While Burnham may criticize the presently unpopular Starmer to support his own political rise, his actual governance would likely be more of the same.
To the extent that the British nation is also demographically changed through immigration and naturalization of non-white, non-British people becoming British “citizens,” this also does not bode well for the political future of Britain. An imported class of voters brought in to permanently change Britain will not stop supporting the uniparty which funds it through generous welfare programs and is ideologically committed to these imported minorities over the native British people.
The Road to Reform
Within their current framework of political parties, it seems the only possibility for a better government would be if Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party could win a majority of seats in Parliament (next general election is scheduled for 2029). However, the Reform Party is plagued with its own problems and accordingly faces criticism from Rupert Lowe’s fringe party of Restore Britain. While Restore attacks Reform from the right, Restore has almost no chance of winning national power. The political situation for right-wing voters in Britain does seem very bleak.
Even if an outsider, right-wing political party could win control of Britain’s parliament and the prime ministry, this would not change the fact that much of the actual policy-making, governance, and criminal justice in Britain is conducted by the leftist administrative state in Britain (similarly to the American administrative state and deep state) through its judges, administrative agencies, bureaucrats, police forces, and intelligence agencies. These are notoriously impervious to political control by voters, and they are the ones truly exercising most of the control over British life.
As political commentator Christian Heiens recently wrote on X, “… The unholy blob that Tony Blair constructed runs everything, and they answer to no one. Starmer himself literally said that he pulls a lever and nothing happens. His replacement will find those levers still do nothing. Without a massive purge of the NGOs, the Quangos, the courts, the civil service, and the administrative state, changing Prime Ministers will do about as much good as swapping out a kid’s steering-wheel toy in a car that’s hurdling off a cliff.”
This unresponsiveness of the government to the voters is a feature, not a bug, of the liberal administrative-intelligence state. Even as leftists prattle about “our democracy” and the “will of the people,” this is just a smokescreen for achieving their own ideological ends, which are achieved by a permanent administrative-intelligence state. If the will of the voters clashes with these goals (such as in the MAGA movement or Brexit), then this is “democratic backsliding” and must be resisted by the permanent organs of the state, even to the point of intelligence agencies propagandizing and censoring their own citizens. The people must be protected from their nativist, nationalist instincts and kept under the globalist yoke.
It is worth noting that, unlike the American constitutional system, the British government features Parliamentary sovereignty in which Parliament is basically a sitting constitutional convention. Thus, a right-wing political majority in Parliament truly could resort to the “fix everything” option by reorganizing the government, dissolving and defunding corrupt organs of the liberal state, denaturalizing and deporting people, and more with no constitutional constraints. This would require secure majorities with an incredibly strong and popular party and party leadership.
The key problem is that the entire permanent state apparatus at present exists to suppress, ban, or block such a populist movement from ever coming into national power. The whole point of the permanent state apparatus is to maintain the cosplay of “our democracy” (the fake choice between open left Labour vs. slightly softer left Tories) while doing its work without any challenge.
Anarcho-Tyranny
Furthermore, the British government continues to provide startling new examples of anarcho-tyranny in which it rigorously and invasively enforces laws against what should be minor offences, while letting dangerous criminals (especially migrants) go unpunished or let off with minimal punishments. Even as in June a Belfast man was nearly beheaded by a Sudanese immigrant, the British police immediately began warning against extremism and “weaponizing” the event for political gain.
In December white British student Henry Nowak was murdered by a Sikh man who lied to the police that Nowak had racially attacked him, leading the police to handcuff Nowak as he bled to death. Starmer’s government has blathered nebulously about the threat of “knife crime” — ignoring the obvious questions like why Sikhs are permitted to carry knives in Britain but not other groups, or why the police were so quick to believe Vickrum Digwa’s false claims that he was the victim of a racial attack.
The British government has launched a massive attempt to regulate online content on social media platforms, allegedly for the cause of defending minors from sexual exploitation. However, evidence continues to mount of potentially tens of thousands at least of British girls systematically groomed, raped, and trafficked by gangs of predominantly Pakistani men. If the British government had any real desire to protect the vulnerable from exploitation, they would go after the Pakistani gangs and the corrupt government officials (like former Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer) who enabled them, rather than focus on censoring right-wing and nationalist figures on social media. The U.K. police state is more interested in censoring true information about the anti-white violence and arresting thousands of its own citizens for speech crimes than it is doing basic law enforcement to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.
On the other hand, the British government’s Environmental Agency is currently investigating a white British lawyer, Paul Powlesland, who cleaned up trash in a river, given he did it without a permit. Or consider how the British Parliament in April passed a law instituting a lifelong ban on tobacco purchases for anyone born after 2009. The government may not protect its citizens from being stabbed or raped by immigrant criminals, but it will stop at nothing to protect young people from cigarettes.
The real story of British politics for the past decades is that, despite the British people expressing increasing frustration with the uniparty of global liberalism and mass migration represented and advanced by figures like Tony Blair and Boris Johnson, the British government remains impervious to its voters’ attempts to reform it in a right-wing direction. Even when a leftist PM like Starmer falls on his face and resigns in disgrace, the system will likely perpetuate as usual, and a new figure can rise to be the figurehead at the helm.
Even if the voters don’t want mass migration, two-tiered policing, deindustrialization, or Net Zero green energy plans, they can’t truly vote for a government that will give them something different. Britain remains a prison island governed by a leftist total state which will not willingly permit its own removal or change. Whether or not this problem can be resolved through the existing political framework in Britain, or whether it will require some kind of more radical, revolutionary change, remains to be seen.
