Starmer’s centrist collapse and the cost of abandoning values The Bulwark’s critique on Britain's political centre

In a fresh article, The Bulwark dissects the post-election strategy of UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, warning that his approach—once electorally useful—has now turned into a political liability. What began as a successful campaign of moderation to win power has, according to the piece, devolved into a reactive, values-free centrism that is collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions.

Starmer’s 2024 electoral triumph, the article notes, was less a sweeping endorsement of Labour than a rejection of the Tories after 14 years of dysfunction. “Starmer was able to appear positively statesmanlike… simply because he did not look like he was about to cry,” the writer quips, referencing the Conservative leadership chaos, especially under Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak. But the critique begins in earnest with what came after Starmer entered Downing Street.

The article argues that Starmer continued his moderate, keep-your-head-down strategy not only during the campaign, but into governance—where it is now faltering. He has refused to address structural problems like Brexit, austerity-era economic policies, and stagnant public services, preferring to cling to “moderation” even when it actively prevents solutions. This is likened to a military commander who overuses a single tactic regardless of context: “A tactical withdrawal worked in one battle, so now they tactically withdraw in all their battles.”

The most scathing criticism is reserved for Starmer’s handling of social issues, particularly transgender rights and immigration. Rather than defend liberal values, The Bulwark claims, he has capitulated to the far right, endorsing policies that echo their rhetoric. For example, his embrace of bathroom restrictions for trans people and aggressive immigration crackdowns signals a moral collapse, not just a political one. “They will never be satisfied,” the article reminds us, quoting an open letter warning that feeding the far right’s demands only empowers them.

Starmer’s reactionary centrism, the piece asserts, misjudges politics as a matter of technical policy adjustments while ignoring the importance of values. Voters don’t just assess platforms; they evaluate the principles behind them. By conceding moral ground, Labour now appears inauthentic—to liberals as untrustworthy and to conservatives as pandering. The result? A haemorrhaging coalition, growing support for Reform UK, and the rise of a new liberal challenger party polling at 10 percent.

Ultimately, The Bulwark concludes that Starmer has mistaken strategic retreat for permanent doctrine, and in doing so, has marched his party past “the limit of appeasement”—the point where policy concessions no longer serve a coherent vision but instead affirm the far right’s worldview. The article warns: if liberals fail to draw clear moral lines in today’s political climate, they risk not just defeat, but irrelevance.

In short, Starmer’s centrism may have won an election—but unless reoriented by values, it won't win the future.

By Vugar Khalilov