THIS is not the UK’s first leadership transition in government, and it is unlikely to be the last. These events have, however, been rare until recently.

In the 80 years since the end of the second world war, there have only been 18 prime ministers. The nineteenth, likely to be Andy Burnham, will become the seventh premier since 2010. So that makes 12 prime ministers over 65 years — and then seven in the last 16 years.

This is a problem, one that is compounded by the reasons for the departure. Six of the 12 prime ministers until 2010 simply lost an election — Attlee, Home, Heath, Callaghan, Major, and Brown. A further three resigned through ill health — Churchill, Macmillan and Wilson. And two resigned because of scandals — Suez and “partygate”.

As such, of the 12 prime ministers from 1945 until 2010, only Margaret Thatcher was dismissed by her party for overtly political reasons. Her backbenchers and her cabinet no longer believed she was an election winner, and she was unceremoniously dumped in 1990. She described it as “treachery with a smile on its face”.

The period since 2010 has been very different. The UK system that was famed for having the stability of government at its core suddenly started shedding prime ministers like winter coats in the height of summer. Only one — David Cameron — left voluntarily after defeat in the Brexit referendum. Sunak lost an election, while the rest were dispatched either because of scandal (Johnson and “partygate”) or party politics (May, Truss and now Starmer).

Starmer is the first Labour prime minister to be cut down midstream — not even halfway through the parliamentary term. Watching events unfold in Westminster, the overwhelming emotion for someone not schooled in the machinations of the UK Government would be bewilderment.

Starmer was elected less than two years ago with a historic majority and is well regarded on the international stage. He is not departing on the back of a scandal, rather his power has simply evaporated.

Starmer’s defenestration is probably closest to those of Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair — with one crucial difference. The revolt against Thatcher seemed to be generated from below. Tories were increasingly worried about their own survival and the Government’s policy direction — particularly on the much-hated poll tax.

Blair’s dénouement was different in the sense that it came from the top and was the culmination of Gordon Brown’s decade-long campaign to secure the premiership. Blair announced the date of his departure following an orchestrated “curry house plot”, when some in Labour’s junior ranks reportedly planned a coup in a Wolverhampton restaurant, which was obviously inspired from above.

Britain’s outgoing Prime Minister Keir Starmer speaks with pupils from Summerfield Primary School as he promotes the official launch of the Great British Summer Savings scheme, at Odeon Milton Keynes Stadium cinema in Milton Keynes, north of London, on June 25, 2026. (Photo: AFP)

When the Burnham threat became real

The defenestration of Starmer seems to sit between those of Thatcher and Blair. It was complicated by the fact that its main protagonist, Andy Burnham, was a significant Labour figure — the mayor of Greater Manchester — but not a Member of Parliament or from the party elite.

Until Burnham became the Member of Parliament for Makerfield, he was only a limited threat. But he managed to tap into some of the key concerns of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) before he even got to Parliament. These broad concerns were dressed up in a range of ways but essentially boiled down to the same fears that the Tory MPs had in 1990. Fear of failure — that is, a failure to get re-elected. There was also a loss of both trust and competence.

The PLP now felt that there had been a string of policy missteps rather than failures, as well as the incompetence and lack of vision that had consolidated the loss of trust and confidence. Crucially, there had also been a run of very poor opinion polls culminating in the disastrous local election results in May. Given all of this — and the enormous success of Makerfield — Starmer’s time was up and Burnham’s time had come.

It remains to be seen whether the change of leader will mark a shift in policy direction or whether it will be more about tone than substance. Policy on its own might not change much, but the language accompanying it may well do. It may be that Burnham is able to connect with the hearts of his backbenchers, and so win their backing for the unpopular choices that are inevitably coming, in a way that Starmer frequently has not.

Burnham will need to decide quickly how to deal with a PLP that will initially be enthusiastic about the leadership transition because they think it spells hope, success and longevity for them as well as for the country. The same PLP might be less united about the hard decisions. He faces a PLP that has already tasted victory by enforcing U-turns on policies such as the winter fuel allowance and a reversal on benefit cuts. As a former whip I know that backbenchers who have tasted blood against their own government are difficult to control.

The patience of today’s backbenchers is thin and limited. Crucially, the one virtue in really short supply on the backbenches is gratitude — especially to the leader.

Former Conservative minister Chris Patten’s passing comment on Thatcher’s demise could apply equally to Starmer’s. Patten said: “I think we all know that quite a lot of crocodiles keep a handkerchief handy.” Maybe the crocodiles are the ones cheering Burnham today while getting ready for tomorrow. Perhaps it was ever thus.

Tony McNulty is a lecturer/teaching fellow on British politics and public policy at Queen Mary University of London. The article was originally published by The Conversation.