Historians will puzzle over the fall of Keir Starmer. He won a landslide victory in July 2024, started no illegal wars, triggered no grave economic crises, and faced no scandalous corruption. Yet less than two years later, his own Labour colleagues toppled him.
The prime minister’s demise points to an increasingly volatile and impatient electorate, but also to a House of Commons that has behaved as “a frequently whimsical appointments board,” according to Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins. Britain is now about to have its seventh prime minister in 10 years.
“Keir Starmer ousted by Labour MPs less than two years after landslide victory, with no scandal or crisis.”
Andy Burnham, who until last week had not been an MP since 2017, will succeed Starmer. His sole claim to Downing Street is that he is currently preferred by most Labour MPs. Two years ago, the same was true of Starmer.
Starmer in 2024 presented a moderate Labour programme and struggled to enact it against hostile economic forces and declining public services. He compromised with backbenchers over welfare, suffered bruising criticism for appointing Peter Mandelson – an associate of Jeffrey Epstein – and faced a crisis over defence spending. But these were normal upsets of modern government, and there is no suggestion Starmer was guilty of gross misdemeanour or default of duty.
In these circumstances, most governing parties would normally support their leader for at least a term. Labour has good reasons to do so: the party’s exceptional Commons majority was granted not by a leftward swing in public opinion, but largely because of the rise of Reform UK. That split the rightwing popular vote, rendering the divided Tories unelectable. Labour has every interest in Reform’s continued success – but by ousting Starmer, the party appears as disunited as the Conservatives.
“What a pity that those Labour colleagues who ousted him could not do the same,” Jenkins wrote, referring to the dignity with which Starmer acted as prime minister.