Democrats should study Keir Starmer's collapse as a warning, argues Samuel Earle in the New York Times. The British Prime Minister secured Labour's largest majority since 1997 in 2024, hailed by centrists as proof that moderate politics could win. Now he's one of Britain's most unpopular leaders, with approval ratings matching failed former PM Liz Truss.

Reform U.K. leads polls, the Greens surge on Labour's left, and local elections threaten a historic wipeout. Starmer built his victory by marginalizing progressive voices, recruiting Conservative defectors, and pitching himself as a moral alternative rather than offering material change. He won with minimal enthusiasm—a thin vote spread across Britain against a despised incumbent.

Without cultivating a loyal base, Starmer now stands exposed: every scandal cuts deeper, his inconsistent messaging on immigration alienates voters, and he lacks defenders when criticism mounts. The article warns that a leader without grassroots support will find the floor collapsing beneath them. Campaigns built on voter apathy ultimately fuel the very anti-establishment forces they claim to oppose.

Earle points to Maine's gubernatorial race as evidence—a moderate incumbent lost to an outsider with a radical message who actually energized the base. Starmer's downfall illustrates that competence and decency alone won't sustain a leader who refuses to stand for anything concrete.