Keir Starmer has stepped down as leader of the Labour Party and — in due course — as prime minister. Despite repeated assurances that he would stay the course, a heavy defeat in the Makerfield by-election, won decisively by Andy Burnham, crystallised the loss of support that had been building inside his party and cabinet. His departure makes him the sixth British prime minister to leave office in the past decade.
Starmer sought to manage an orderly transition rather than precipitate the avalanche of ministerial departures that felled recent Conservative leaders. His farewell combined a measured call for dignity in handover with an emotional acknowledgement that his time at the top had not delivered the success he had promised.
A weak mandate from the start
Starmer did not take office with the kind of popular mandate that often cushions new premierships. On the eve of the 2024 general election his net satisfaction rating was unusually low for an incoming prime minister, with Ipsos reporting a net score of minus 21. Only 31% of the public said they were satisfied with him then, while 52% were dissatisfied. That combination of a parliamentary majority and negative public ratings was unprecedented in modern British politics.
It is common to expect a post‑victory “honeymoon” that lifts a new leader’s standing. Historic examples include the sharp rises in approval seen by Tony Blair in 1997 and by David Cameron after 2010. Starmer did see an initial improvement — polling briefly moved toward break‑even, with Opinium reporting a small net plus and YouGov showing a similar recovery. But the bounce was shallow and fragile, leaving him vulnerable when new political pressures emerged.
Apparent strength, hidden fragility
Measured purely by the size of his Commons majority, Starmer appeared secure. Yet that very impression of invulnerability echoes the trajectory of Boris Johnson, whose large 2019 majority failed to prevent his downfall a little over three years later. Majorities can mask underlying instability when the party coalition that supplied victory is fragile.
There are worrying parallels between Starmer’s rise and fall and that of Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn’s personal ratings collapsed between 2017 and 2019 as a coalition of voters and parties around Brexit reshaped the electoral landscape. Starmer’s decline followed a similar time frame and for related reasons: relatively narrow electoral support while broader, long‑running political realignments continued to distort British politics.
Electoral dynamics and the two‑bloc reality
Labour’s 2024 victory was substantial in seats but far less so in votes. Analyses of that election labelled it a “loveless landslide”: Labour won around 64% of seats on roughly 34% of the vote — a historic low vote share for a majority government. That imbalance reflected a wider pattern in which parties can win parliamentary control without commanding broad popular enthusiasm.
Once in office, Labour found itself squeezed from both flanks. In post‑industrial areas Reform UK eroded Labour’s support; in urban progressive areas the Greens and other independents capitalised on issues such as Gaza to chip away at Labour’s vote. The Greens increased their parliamentary representation substantially in 2024 and independent challengers succeeded in what had previously been safe Labour seats. These trends translated into painful by‑election defeats, poor local election showings in England, and failure to unseat a weakened but resilient Scottish National Party in Scotland.
The result was a government whose parliamentary dominance coexisted with a fragile popular coalition. That fragility is rooted in the deep, identity-driven divisions that endure in British politics.
Brexit’s long shadow and two‑bloc polarisation
The political realignments triggered by the 2016 Brexit referendum have not disappeared. Instead, Brexit shifted the axes around which voter identities now cluster, making British politics best understood as a contest between two broad blocs. Within each bloc there is fragmentation on policy details and occasional cross‑pressures, but the underlying identity divide — shaped in large part by attitudes to Brexit and its aftermath — remains influential.
Leaders such as Starmer inherit coalitions assembled from disparate groups. Those coalitions can hold only so long as the underlying balance remains favorable. When new issues or rivals appeal to specific parts of that coalition, the edifice can quickly crumble: a sandcastle washed away when the tide comes in.
What this means for British politics
Starmer’s resignation is another sign of a revolving door at Number 10. It highlights how modern British government can be destabilised even when a party holds a decisive Commons majority. The dynamics that unseated him — shallow popular support, competition from both left and right, and persistent identity polarisation rooted in the Brexit era — will continue to test any future prime minister.
Nicholas Dickinson is a lecturer in politics at the University of Exeter. This article was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.
