The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

The fall of Britain’s prime minister is a warning for America

Keir Starmer’s resignation shows how moderation can go wrong.

Since Donald Trump’s 2024 victory, the Democratic Party has been embroiled in a vicious internal conversation over “moderation.” One camp argues that the party has moved too far to the left on cultural issues, particularly immigration and trans rights, and that it needs to tack to the center in order to secure its long-term political future. Their opponents argue that such a strategy will alienate core Democratic voters without making significant inroads among the MAGA faithful.

This week, the anti-moderation camp has been claiming vindication — citing not developments in the US, but the resignation of UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

Starmer has, more than any other center-left politician around the world, actually executed on what the pro-moderation camp proposes — moving the Labour Party to the center on social issues, particularly immigration. Yet Starmer’s numbers collapsed, and Labour experienced a series of humiliating electoral defeats in special and local elections, while the far right and far left both surged. For the anti-moderates, the lesson is straightforward: a Democratic party that does something similar is due to defeat.

Will Britain’s next prime minister reverse Brexit?

“Starmer’s resignation is a warning,” Adam Bonica, a political scientist at Stanford University, wrote this week. “In a moment like this, tacking right isn’t the safe play, it’s the thing that sinks you.”

The moderates, for their part, argue that this is a misread of the evidence: that Starmer actually won power in the first place due to moderate politics, and that his declining numbers after taking power have more to do with economic fundamentals than culture.

“His cultural moderation has been an asset to Labour in getting closer to where the mainstream of voters are,” Claire Ainsley, a former Starmer adviser and current director of Project on the Center-Left Renewal at the Progressive Policy Institute, told me.

The evidence suggests both sides are overstating the case. His rise to power shows the potential upside of moderating; his downfall shows its risk.

Moderation can mitigate problems stemming from a perception that party is too extreme. But it doesn’t always work the way supporters of moderation suggest, with calculated policy concessions on social issues like immigration automatically translating to increased support.

In fact, said policy concessions can end up trapping you into a political no-man’s land without a base of your own to lean on — unless paired with a clear affirmative vision of one’s own.

When moderation helped Starmer

After the UK’s 2019 elections, the Labour Party was in the wilderness. Led by the hard-left socialist Jeremy Corbyn, the party suffered its worst performance in roughly 100 years.

This was not because the incumbent Conservatives were especially popular: Prime Minister Boris Johnson had a net approval rating of minus 12. But........

© Vox