In his novel The Man Without Qualities, Robert Musil described the main character Ulrich as a man who is not empty, but open to possibilities. He lacks neither ability nor basic moral conviction, but he lacks a defining trait that would enclose him in some kind of identity.
And this is a surprisingly accurate description of Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Starmer is neither an ideological fanatic nor a political opportunist. He is neither a radical nor a cynic. But, like Musil's hero, he seems to refuse to become someone specific. He rejects British identity.
Parallel with a crumbling empire
There is another parallel between Musil's novel and the current situation in Great Britain. The plot of the famous novel takes place on the eve of the collapse of Austria-Hungary, at a time when the world is still formally functioning but has already lost its meaning. The institutions of power have been emptied.
Starmer is in the same situation. His worldview, based on globalization, liberalism, and technocratic governance, is crumbling. But a new one has not yet emerged. Starmer is thus fighting against the spirit of the times. Will he manage to stay in office, or will he be swept away before the end of the year?
Starmer may not have read Musil's novel, but he clearly defines the political meaning of his efforts. In an interview with The Economist, he repeatedly argued that centrist or mainstream politics in Europe is facing a long-term test. People's living standards have not improved since the 2008 financial crisis. Public services are deteriorating despite rising spending.
Western countries, including the UK, are struggling with large public deficits. The UK budget showed a deficit of 5.1 percent in 2025. The UK's total debt thus amounts to 93.60 percent of GDP. Although this is much better than France's 113 percent or Italy's 135 percent, the size of the deficit and debt is forcing Starmer's government to cut spending.
Starmer's analysis and its blind spot
Starmer's analysis of the situation is true in that the 2008 financial crisis can indeed be seen as a turning point from which liberalism in Europe has been in economic decline. However, Starmer does not consider the relationship between cause and effect. His view of the world is based precisely on the unquestionable dogma of liberalism. He does not consider that the 2008 crisis was a logical consequence of liberalism.
It was not something that happened by accident or as a failure of the system. Liberalism inevitably led to this first financial crisis. And the fact that in 2026 the UK has not found a recipe to overcome it is only proof that the fault is systemic, not accidental.
Starmer sees the way out in kick-starting economic growth. But here's the problem. The British economy grew by only 0.1 percent in the third quarter of 2025. The Labour Party's economic vision is influenced by Keynes, who relied on state intervention in times of crisis. The state should go into debt to support a dying economy with the help of debt.
Once the economy starts up, the debt will be reduced. It sounds good on paper, but the reality is different. First, previous governments have not deliberately reduced public debt even during periods of growth. Moreover, the UK has the same problem as all other Western economies. Despite high debt, the economy is not growing. Governments are borrowing huge amounts of money and the population is becoming poorer.
This problem cannot be solved by a mainstream approach. This is precisely why Starmer does not see his main threat coming from the Conservative Party, which he defeated in the 2024 elections. The Conservatives offer virtually the same solutions as Starmer, only with a slightly left-wing slant. His main rival is Nigel Farage's Reform UK party. This is also confirmed by opinion polls. Reform UK leads in the polls with 26 percent. Starmer's Labour Party has only 17 percent.
Main political enemy
The problem for Starmer is more complicated in the case of Reform UK, because it is not just a matter of criticizing the economic conditions of the working classes in Great Britain. Farage bases his politics on the issue of migration. And that is a difficult problem for Starmer to solve because, as a supporter of the old world, he obviously did not see migration as a problem.
Even if Starmer changed his view and wanted to address the security issue, it would mean increased security costs for him. It will be very difficult for him to find the money for this.
Let's add another interesting reason why security in the UK is practically an unsolvable problem. In an interview for the YouTube channel Thinkerview, geopolitician Alexandre del Valle identified security problems as the result of long-term work by the British secret services.
British intelligence adopted a policy of not preventing the most hard-core jihadists and other terrorists from entering its territory. It was even pleased that these groups had established a base in Britain. The British services justified this step by saying that it allowed them to keep these individuals under surveillance. And they could infiltrate and monitor them. Unfortunately, the whole situation got out of hand.
Reform UK, of course, benefits from the support and cooperation of the MAGA movement. And that is a big advantage. Thanks to the fact that there is no language barrier and the US is a traditional ally, ordinary people are much better informed about what is happening in the US and around the world. If Reform UK wins the next parliamentary elections in 2029, it would mean that the old world would be gone forever. But three years is a very long time.
The 2026 election test
Starmer has the advantage that unless he decides to resign himself, few people can force him to do so from the outside. The real danger for Starmer therefore comes not from voters or the opposition, but from his own party. It is the Labour Party that can create enough pressure to force him to leave – not for ideological reasons, but out of a simple instinct for political survival.
Starmer's future may thus be decided not in Westminster, but in the May regional and local elections. These are not usually a referendum on the government's program, but on the party's ability to win.
A major defeat for the Labour Party would not directly affect the prime minister, but primarily party officials, municipal and regional leaders, i.e., people whose careers depend on whether the Labour Party brand is still electable. The end of the lackluster Starmer may thus come very quickly.