Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
In the 37 years from 1979 to 2016 Britain had five prime ministers, all but one of whom served at least one full term in office. In the 10 years since, the country has seen five leaders (six if one counts the last months of David Cameron). Four of those reached office without a general election, though one later secured a clear mandate. Boris Johnson and Theresa May served barely three years, Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss far less.
Now there is talk of another change. Just 18 months after he was elected in a parliamentary landslide, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has had to begin 2026 insisting he can survive the year. Talks of plots to remove him after what are expected to be disastrous local elections in Wales, Scotland and England in May are swirling round Westminster.
There are valid questions about Starmer’s leadership. He has made serious errors and his MPs fear that he is not the man to avert a potential government led by Reform UK’s Nigel Farage at the next election.
The climate of intrigue and political instability is not only bad for Britain, it is also a sign of a deeper malaise: politics not working as it should in the face of serious economic, social and global challenges.
This constant shuffling of leaders makes it harder for the UK to enjoy the necessary period of stability, long-term planning and quiet resolve that may provide some of the solutions the country seeks. Every change also brings another reshuffle. Britain is on its sixth chancellor of the exchequer since 2019 and its seventh education secretary. The last decade has seen 14 housing ministers. Is anyone surprised the UK has a housebuilding problem?
It has long been normal for parties to make a change midterm after a particularly long-serving leader runs out of steam — Margaret Thatcher to John Major, Tony Blair to Gordon Brown. But what is happening now is different.
There are specific reasons for the prime ministerial turnover. The Brexit referendum in 2016 destabilised politics while sluggish economic growth and rising public debt have made politics harder for leaders. The scale of change, however, prioritises an atmosphere of short-termist permanent campaigning over good government.
There are those who argue that a change in premier should necessitate an early election, though this runs counter to the parliamentary principle that holds that the UK elects a government not a president.
One significant difference from the Thatcher era, though, is that leaders are no longer chosen by elected MPs but by unrepresentative party members. A shift in leader often pulls the party towards the more hardline views of those activists. This reached its zenith in the disastrous though mercifully short premiership of Truss. And the new leader is often weakened by the lack of a mandate from voters.
It is one thing to make a change shortly before a general election, but it is hard to argue that this era of politics as blood sport serves the electorate. It can only deter investment and hiring as businesses wait to see what economic policies the next change will bring. It acts against long-term planning and implementation. And it prevents ministers and leaders from focusing on the actual job.
There will always be occasions when a leader has to go; this year may present another. But the carousel has been spinning too fast for the good of the country. The experience of recent years has not been an advert for high turnover or for the UK. It has been a clear sign of a sickly body politic.
“Don’t worry there’ll be another along in a minute” works fine for buses. For prime ministers, not so much.
