Clicxpost

Politics

why Regular change of PM ? can anyone fix britain

why Regular change of PM

Britain has slipped back into political uncertainty after Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced his resignation, the sixth UK leader to leave office in just a decade.

Standing outside 10 Downing Street on Monday morning, Starmer looked emotional as he admitted he was no longer the right person to lead the country. Two years ago he’d secured one of the largest election victories in modern British history and promised to end years of political turmoil. Now that promise has collapsed into a resignation speech.

His departure raises a harder question: why do British prime ministers keep losing their grip on power, and can the country’s political system win back public trust at all?

A Rapid Fall From a Historic Victory

When Starmer led Labour to a landslide in 2024, many voters hoped he would end the instability that followed Brexit, the COVID pandemic and a revolving door of Conservative governments.

Instead, his administration ran into many of the same problems that wore down the governments before it.

Economic growth stayed sluggish. Living standards didn’t improve for millions of households. Immigration stayed divisive. Public services kept struggling under financial pressure.

Starmer’s resignation means Britain has had six prime ministers in ten years, one of the fastest turnover rates in its modern history.

Political historian Anthony Seldon says the constant churn at the top has eroded confidence in government.

“Britain is in a very deep hole,” he said, warning that if Starmer’s likely successor, Andy Burnham, also fails to restore confidence, the country’s political outlook could darken further.

A Country Struggling to Improve Living Standards

At the heart of Britain’s political instability sits an economic problem that’s persisted for more than a decade.

Many families feel worse off than the generation before them. Wages have struggled to keep up with rising prices, and younger people increasingly expect fewer opportunities than their parents had.

Analysts trace the roots of the problem back to the 2008 global financial crisis.

Britain’s economy leaned heavily on its financial sector, which took a hard hit in the crash. The spending cuts that followed left public services strained and limited the government’s ability to respond to later crises.

Jill Rutter, a senior fellow at the Institute for Government, said frustration has built steadily among voters.

“There has been a growing feeling that life is not getting better and that the next generation may be worse off,” she said.

That dissatisfaction has dogged every government since the financial crisis, regardless of party.

Brexit Changed British Politics

Many experts point to Brexit as a turning point in Britain’s political history.

The 2016 vote to leave the European Union reshaped the country’s politics and exposed deep divisions over national identity, immigration and economic policy.

Brexit also reignited calls for Scottish independence, since most Scottish voters wanted to remain in the EU.

The political battles that followed helped bring down several prime ministers, including Theresa May and Boris Johnson.

Brexit isn’t the only reason for Britain’s political instability, but many analysts believe it sped up problems that already existed and made governing harder.

Debt and Rising Costs Have Limited Government Options

Britain’s financial position has worsened in recent years.

Government borrowing rose sharply during the COVID pandemic as ministers rolled out emergency support for businesses and workers. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine then pushed up energy prices and inflation across Europe.

Britain’s national debt has climbed to almost 100% of gross domestic product.

Japan and the United States carry even higher debt loads, but Britain faces more pressure because investors worry about its growth prospects and its reliance on foreign borrowing.

Those financial constraints have left governments with little room to spend more or cut taxes.

For many households, the result has been a long squeeze on living standards.

Research by supermarket chain Asda and the Centre for Economics and Business Research found that the poorest 40% of British households had less spending power in 2025 than in 2021.

Those numbers have fed anger at mainstream political parties.

Why Governments Keep Struggling

Several experts think Britain’s political system itself is part of the problem.

Sam Freedman, author of Failed State: Why Nothing Works and How We Fix It, argues the country has become too centralized and that key government departments are too small and overstretched to handle modern challenges.

Others say politics has become too reactive.

Round-the-clock news channels and social media put politicians under constant pressure to respond to events immediately.

Roger Gale, one of Britain’s longest-serving lawmakers, believes governments move too fast and produce weak policy.

“There is too much legislation,” he said. “A lot of it is bad and a lot of it is badly drafted.”

He says Britain needs a slower, more deliberate approach to governing.

Starmer’s Government Struggled to Find Direction

Critics say Starmer entered office without a clear long-term plan for tackling Britain’s major problems.

His government wrestled with energy costs, investment, defense spending, healthcare and economic growth all at once.

Despite several policy resets, his administration never convinced voters it had a clear direction.

Public frustration grew as many of Labour’s promises failed to show up in daily life.

By the time Starmer announced his resignation, his popularity had dropped sharply, and pressure from within his own party had become impossible to ignore.

Andy Burnham Faces a Difficult Challenge

Attention now turns to Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester and the man widely expected to become Britain’s next prime minister.

Many Labour members see him as a stronger communicator, someone who can reconnect with voters and push back against the rising popularity of Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party.

He’ll inherit the same problems that brought down his predecessor, though.

He’ll need to appoint a new cabinet, rebuild public confidence and explain how his government plans to improve living standards.

Former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak warned that without a clear strategy, Burnham could meet the same fate as the leaders before him.

“Without that, he will become yet another prime minister lying awake wondering why it isn’t working,” Sunak wrote in the Sunday Times.

A Defining Moment for Britain

Britain stands at another political crossroads.

A country that once prided itself on stable government and long-serving leaders has instead become known for rapid changes at the top.

Frequent leadership contests, economic pressure and public frustration have worn down trust in politics.

The next prime minister will face enormous expectations. Voters want stronger economic growth, better public services and clear answers on immigration and living standards.

Whether Britain’s next leader can deliver any of that will decide if the country can break its cycle of instability, or simply add a seventh name to the list.

RECOMMENDED
Politics

Trump’s deportation push forces dozens of LGBT migrants onto hostile terrain

By George Mensah 6 min read

The United States has deported at least 40 LGBT migrants who had won legal protection from persecution to African countries that criminalise same-sex relations or have been described by the State Department as hostile to LGBT people, according to a Reuters investigation. The cases date from the Trump administration’s expanded use of third-country deportations this year.

One of them is Abdou Latifou, a gay man from Togo. In June, US officials put him on a deportation plane to Sierra Leone, where gay men can be sentenced to life in prison under colonial-era laws. A US immigration judge had ruled in November that it was not safe to send him home.

A mob attack, then a court win

Two years ago, a mob assaulted Latifou and threatened to kill him after he was seen kissing the man he loved, according to his asylum application. He fled Togo and sought refuge in the United States.

When the immigration judge ruled in his favour last November, he felt he had reached safety. ‘I told myself, “From this day on, I’m entering a world where I’m free to live as myself,”‘ he said.

The judge granted him a lesser form of protection than asylum. It barred the government from deporting him to Togo but allowed his removal to other countries.

Sent to Sierra Leone, then back to Togo

Latifou, a gay Togolese man, sits on a beach overlooking the Atlantic Ocean in Abidjan

After he landed in Sierra Leone, Latifou was held for two weeks in a hotel under police surveillance. Guards then put him on a flight back to Togo. He arrived with a few items of clothing and $100.

He went to his village to see his mother. A relative soon warned him that he was not safe, and helped him cross the border into Benin. He continued to Ivory Coast, where he now lives with a friend and works as a security guard.

Same-sex relations are legal in Ivory Coast, but Ivorian activists have reported rising homophobic violence. Latifou avoids the Togolese community ‘so I don’t get recognized.’

What Reuters found across 40 cases

A gay Mauritanian man walks through a neighbourhood in Matam

Reuters tracked all 40 people, who come from across Africa and from Iraq, Jamaica and Russia. Reporters interviewed a dozen deportees and immigration lawyers and reviewed hundreds of pages of legal documents.

Sixteen remain in the countries they were deported to, and some are still detained. Sixteen others, like Latifou, were sent back to their home countries against their will. Nine are in hiding in third locations. One Ghanaian man is no longer in contact with his lawyers or relatives, they said.

The 40 cases involve deportations to three countries that explicitly criminalise same-sex sexual acts: Sierra Leone, Cameroon and Eswatini. Three others have no such laws, but the State Department has documented abuses of LGBT people there, including ‘corrective rape’ and conversion therapy. They are the Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Government spokespeople for all six countries did not respond to requests for comment.

More than half of the 40, including Latifou, were not eligible for asylum because they had not applied in countries they passed through before entering the US illegally. That rule came from Biden-era restrictions, which a federal court vacated in May.

Bridget Crawford, director of law and policy at the LGBT advocacy group Immigration Equality, said the US has repeatedly granted asylum to LGBT people from these countries. Her group has helped 12 Cameroonians and one person from Congo win asylum in recent years.

Where they ended up

Latifou, a gay Togolese man, walks along a beach in Abidjan

Many deportees told Reuters they wound up wherever someone would take them in.

A bisexual Ghanaian woman was deported to Cameroon in January and stayed for seven months. She could not speak French, the main local language, and feared for her safety in Ghana. She moved in with a relative in northern Nigeria, where penalties for same-sex sexual acts can include lashes or death by stoning. Most days she does not leave the house, she said.

A gay man from Ghana was deported to Sierra Leone and then forcibly repatriated. He has spent four months hiding in the forests of neighbouring Togo and lives on small sums his mother sends him. Most nights he sleeps on a blanket on the ground. When it rains, he shelters in an abandoned, half-finished house.

A 44-year-old Mauritanian man had lived in the US for more than a decade when ICE detained him in January and flew him to Eswatini, a small southern African kingdom he had never heard of. He spent a month and a half in a mosquito-infested prison with no hot water, he said. He eventually agreed to be flown back to Mauritania and slipped across the border into Senegal, where the government recently doubled the maximum penalty for same-sex sexual acts.

He is now staying with relatives in a remote town and trying to find out whether any countries in Europe or Asia would accept him. ‘My life just got turned upside down,’ he said.

A tactic that was rare before 2025

Third-country deportations were uncommon before Donald Trump’s second term. Since he returned to office and began a broad immigration crackdown, ICE and Border Patrol have deported more than 40,000 people to countries that are not their own, according to preliminary government data shared with Reuters. That is far above earlier estimates from advocates. About 900 people were sent to African countries.

Trump’s administration has made deals with impoverished foreign governments to take them.

Courts and the government’s response

In a February order in a case challenging the policy, US District Judge Brian Murphy addressed the risk to gay people. He called the government’s claim that those targeted had not explicitly asked not to be deported to repressive third countries an ‘absurdity.’

‘No person could reasonably be expected to make detailed, prophylactic claims about every country on Earth to which she might have a valid claim against removal,’ he wrote.

The Supreme Court has now put a hold on Murphy’s ruling, which lets the administration continue third-country deportations. The court will hear arguments in December.

Claire Trickler-McNulty, a former senior US immigration official, said sending people ‘to a third country where they face the very persecution we recognized makes a mockery of our protection systems.’

Chandler Rebel, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, said in a statement that the agency ‘does not enforce the law on the basis of sexual orientation, that would be illegal.’ He added: ‘Third country removals are an essential public safety tool.’

On people who leave ICE custody, Rebel said: ‘When an individual is no longer in ICE custody then ICE will no longer be responsible for them.’

What happens next

The Supreme Court’s December hearing will decide whether the policy continues in its current form. Until then, the government can keep removing people to third countries, and the 40 documented cases show what that has meant for LGBT migrants who had won protection in US courts.

Politics

Ohio Town Bans Data Centers It Doesn’t Have, and the Fight Reshapes the Midterms

By George Mensah 6 min read

No company has announced any plan to build a data center in Defiance, Ohio, a city of 17,000 people surrounded by soybean fields in the state’s northwest corner. Residents are moving to ban one anyway. On November 3, voters there will decide a ballot measure that would prohibit all but the smallest data center projects, after the county’s economic development office confirmed it had fielded inquiries from tech companies. City officials have already imposed a six-month moratorium on new project approvals.

Defiance is one front in a fight now playing out across Ohio and much of the country, where anxiety about AI infrastructure has turned data center construction from a routine economic development pitch into a live issue in the 2026 midterms.

A $2 billion number changed the debate

Residents in Defiance already worried about what data centers would do to farmland, electricity demand and water supply. Those worries hardened this summer when state tax records showed Ohio had given up more than $2 billion in sales-tax revenue through data-center incentives across 2024 and 2025, with Amazon and Meta among the companies benefiting.

A Bowling Green State University poll taken August 31 found 71 percent of Ohioans would support a temporary ban on new data center construction. That is not a narrow plurality. It is close to three in four residents of a state that has spent a decade courting this exact industry.

Becca Rupp, who founded Citizens for Responsible Development in Defiance, put the sentiment plainly. Most people feel preyed upon by big business, she said.

Governor Mike DeWine, a Republican, has suspended new applications for data-center tax exemptions while lawmakers work on reforms. Those lawmakers left for summer recess without acting, so the incentive program sits frozen and undefined heading into an election where it has become a talking point on its own.

Democrats find an opening in rural Ohio

Big tech fast-tracking new off-grid power plants, leaving communities in the dark about their pollution

For Democrats, who have struggled for a decade to win rural votes in the Trump-era Midwest, the data-center backlash has opened a rare line of attack in exactly the territory they need.

Representative Marcy Kaptur is running for reelection in a newly redrawn district that now includes Defiance and other conservative rural counties, in what she has called one of the hardest races of her four-decade career. She has built television ads around data centers, accusing Republican opponent Derek Merrin of backing the tax breaks residents now resent.

Politicians are letting these companies pass their enormous energy and utility costs onto Ohio ratepayers, Kaptur said in a statement, then handing them billions in tax breaks on top of it. FirstEnergy data backs part of her argument: residential electricity bills in Defiance rose 10 to 15 percent in June compared with a year earlier.

Merrin has not responded to requests for comment on the ads. In a Facebook post last week, he wrote that Kaptur was blaming him for a tax break enacted before he was elected to the Ohio legislature.

The Senate race turns on the same issue

State of the Union address at the U.S. Capitol in Washington D.C.

The same fight is shaping Ohio’s Senate race between Republican incumbent Jon Husted and Democrat Sherrod Brown, who is trying to reclaim the seat he lost in 2024. Recent polling shows Brown ahead, and Republican groups responded by spending $14 million on Ohio advertising in a single week.

Brown has called Husted “data centers’ best friend” and criticized him for promoting the tax incentives now under fire. Ohioans, not Jon Husted and his billionaire friends, should decide whether data centers get built in their community, Brown’s campaign said.

Husted’s campaign points to legislation he has sponsored that would require data-center operators to pay for the electricity generation and transmission capacity their facilities need. Spokesperson Amy Natoce argued Brown had three decades in Congress to address the issue and did nothing, then started caring the moment an election arrived.

From zoning disputes to a governor’s race

Lyn Cox, who leads the advocacy group Conserve Ohio from rural Waterville Township about 40 miles from Defiance, said the tax-subsidy disclosure turned a series of scattered local zoning fights into a statewide issue overnight. She called it a huge turning point, one that has pushed candidates in both parties to develop actual policy positions instead of vague talking points.

That pressure has reached the governor’s race. Republican Vivek Ramaswamy, who previously supported attracting tech investment to Ohio, released a proposal that would eliminate local property-tax abatements for data centers, redirect the revenue into homeowner rebates, and require developers to cover any increase in residential electricity costs their projects cause.

His Democratic opponent, Amy Acton, wants to restrict the tax incentives, require developers to fund their own power infrastructure, and mandate union labor standards on construction. Both candidates have also called for limits on building data centers on productive farmland.

Cox is not impressed by either platform. They’re just words, she said. Both sides came up with a policy because they’re starting to understand this is a sleeper issue.

Conserve Ohio is now pursuing a 2027 state constitutional amendment that would ban construction of any data center using more than 25 megawatts of power, while backing similar local ballot measures around the state. The group is also pushing state officials to disclose how much revenue local governments have given up through their own separate tax agreements with data-center operators, numbers that remain unpublished.

What the companies say

Amazon says it has invested close to $40 billion in Ohio since 2015. Meta points to more than $2.3 billion in state investment since 2018. Both companies argue their facilities generate tax revenue, jobs and broader economic activity in the communities where they operate.

For Rupp, the argument has moved past any single project. The real question, she said, is whether elected officials will defend the public interest against big tech at all. She called it a breakdown between what government was supposed to do for small America and what it has failed to do, and said data centers now sit at the center of that failure.

What happens next

Three dates will show whether this backlash has staying power beyond one election cycle.

November 3 is the first test. If Defiance voters approve a ban on a data center that does not exist yet, expect similar preemptive measures to appear on ballots in other Ohio counties next cycle, and expect other states watching AI infrastructure expansion to take notice.

The Senate and gubernatorial races are the second test, and the clearest read on whether this issue moves votes rather than headlines. A Brown win in a state Trump carried twice would tell national Democrats that utility bills and tax giveaways, not just AI abstractly, are the frame that works in rural districts.

The third is legislative. Ohio lawmakers left the DeWine moratorium in place without passing reform before recess. Whatever they do when they return, whether that is capping incentives, mandating developer-funded infrastructure, or letting the freeze lapse, will set the template other state legislatures either copy or avoid as this fight spreads.

ADVERTISEMENT
Scroll to Top