"Why has Britain been changing prime ministers so fast?" A literature summary


Summary Author: Doctor Terence Rajivan Edward
Draft version: version 7 (17 July Tony Blair added; 17 July Dirga added; 16 July some Instagram video summaried added, 15 July 2026, King added, more will be added later, my comments mostly in square brackets)

Zoe Williams.  6th prime minster in 7 years. Williams suggests it is time that we the electorate consider whether it is we who are the problem here [or that is how I interpret her metaphor-rich article. She refers to Italy as an example. Is there not a risk that you finally give up on quickly getting rid of leaders when it is to the convenience of a fascist?].  She says politicians and political commentators have learnt to stop being honest after getting burnt, when telling the truth about leaving the EU. "Dog behaviourists call it one-trial learning – burn your nose on a barbecue one time and you stay away from it. Stand in front of an electorate, say "This is going to make you all poorer, with no discernible benefit", and lose, one time, and you stop saying what's real – en masse!" Thus "In place of concrete plans from a world that exists, there's been a carousel of promises whose only difference is their phrasing." "We thought we'd grown out of the grand fantasy that everyone's problems are some foreigner's fault - but, on the contrary, fellow electors, we need to grow up more, if we're ever going to be mature enough for these politics of ours."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/apr/27/are-prime-ministers-problem-or-is-uk-ungovernable

Tony Blair. Tony Blair - who was prime minister for 10 years, though it ended with a taboo on ever listening to him! - says that the reason why the prime minister is changing so often is that politics is being prioritized over policy: it is policy focus, substance, which defines the centre of the political spectrum, he tells us [and readers will surely recall the saying that elections are won from the centre - lack of policy orientation means you cannot win the centre and, after the initial excitement, soon get fired by a party worried about election results]. In an essay, he says, "Both main parties have gone off the rails by putting internal politics first and good policy second." Policies are desparately required regarding 2 major current or forthcoming changes: (1) changes to the geopolitical world which see China alongside the USA as a superpower, with India to join soon - the gap between these 3 and fourth will be massive and Britain will be "a middle power"; (2) changes brought about by new technology, specifically articial intelligence. It will displace jobs and create new ones, says Blair, and companies will rise or fall depending on how they react to the new technology, though the exact consequences are unclear - his essay is desparately short in detail here. It's the 21st century equivalent of the industrial revolution. [This is common ground between himself and Rishi Sunak: the only PM in the last decade with impressive economic knowledge???] Blair does not explicitly consider the question of Britain's frequently changing prime minister in his much-discussed essay, but he does relate his main points to that question in a BBC interview and in the essay he warns against regarding Keir Starmer's personality as the problem. [It would not be a big problem from Blair's characteristically big picture perspective but it is a problem. Such an abrasive leader encourages abrasive behaviour from bosses all over the place - who think this is a key part of the role - and this makes the lives of various workers difficult to bear. An example from avant-la-Starmer-time: as a teaching assistant at the University of Manchester, I recall being in the office of a Starmer-like boss and a student visited and the lecture loudly said, "Terence, what are you doing here?" Blair simply has not experienced being treated like sh*t from a boss? Anyway, please don't send us a decorous fascist instead!] In the BBC interview, he says that a serious country cannot have 7 prime ministers in 10 years and until we get sound policy, we will keep changing leader! Blair reiterates the priority of policy in the interview, over internal politics, but he simply advises "put politics second" in the interview, dropping "internal" [and confusingly: most people would regard a politician putting forward a policy as part of doing politics]. Later he suggests there is an overemphasis on leader personality, over policy. He interestingly asks us in the interview to leave aside the geopolitical trend and focus on policy towards artificial intelligence, which is not even part of the debate. 
https://institute.global/insights/politics-and-governance/the-labour-party-is-playing-with-fire-over-its-future-and-the-future-of-the-country
https://www.instagram.com/p/DY1-Z-AlKTA/
Add Varoufakis reference.

Tony McNulty. In the last 80 years, 18 prime ministers. 12 over 65 years, and then 6, with the 7th imminent. "Six of the 12 PMs until 2010 simply lost an election - Attlee, Home, Heath, Callaghan, Major and Brown. A further three resigned through ill health - Churchill, Macmillan and Wilson." From the 12 from 1945 to 2010, only Margaret Thatcher dismissed for clearly political reasons: no longer believed to be an election winner. Compare recently: Johnson dismissed because of partygate scandal, May, Truss, Starmer because of party politics, Starmer less than 2 years after historic majority. A novice is surely to be bewildered. McNulty gives an explanation of why Burnham managed to undermine Starmer. "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." But McNulty then suggests it was always this way: "Maybe the crocodiles are the ones cheering Burnham today while getting ready for tomorrow. Perhaps it was ever thus." In short, he provides no explanation, despite being a former politician and a lecturer in politics.
Why is the UK now changing prime minister every few years?
https://theconversation.com/why-is-the-uk-now-changing-prime-minister-every-few-years-285964


Outlook News Desk. Former cabinet secretary Gus O'Donnell, who has seen three prime ministerial transitions at close quarters, points to a systemic issue: frequent leadership changes drag entire ministerial teams with them, leaving inexperienced leaders surrounded by novices and creating conditions in which long-term thinking becomes almost impossible." "Unlike presidential systems where leaders hold an independent mandate from voters, British prime ministers govern only as long as they retain the confidence of their parliamentary colleagues, WION pointed out. That structural vulnerability has been sharpened over recent decades by changes to internal party rules that lower the threshold for triggering a leadership contest." Within the Conservative party, letters from 15% of MPs force a vote of no confidence; 20% for Labour. "he repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act removed another layer of constitutional protection, leaving prime ministers more exposed to sudden shifts in parliamentary support. Brexit further destabilised the political landscape by weakening traditional party loyalties and producing an electorate that demands visible results quickly. When those expectations go unmet, internal divisions accelerate"
22 June 2026
https://www.outlookindia.com/international/why-britain-changed-seven-prime-ministers-in-just-10-yearsexplained


Tom Clark. Draws a comparison with the French 4th republic before Charles de Gaulle. Does not offer much explanation. "Cath Haddon of the Institute for Government thinktank acknowledges, there comes a point where personally ineffective PMs have to go." Haddon faintly suggests PMs not given enough time to learn. Why though? No explanation given. "The threat of removal can cause almost as much distraction and disruption as the fact of it." Quotes politician Damian Green on his experience working for Theresa May. Article says, "Today's bouts of regicide mania were foreshadowed 30 years ago." But it is difficult to extract the comparison being made, since John Major lasted 6 and a half years. Article offers no explanation, but signals knowledge of various historical facts which may be of use to someone interested. (Clark might be a good assistant to an expert, but don't expect him to the official job, i.e. answer the question!)
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/may/17/the-ungovernable-country-why-britain-keeps-losing-prime-ministers


McWorld desk. "Political analysts say there is no single explanation. Instead, Britain's revolving door at 10 Downing Street reflects the combined impact of Brexit, economic stagnation, increasingly rebellious lawmakers, changing voter behaviour and a media landscape that has transformed modern politics, the Financial Times reported." "Polling experts argue that political divisions are now less about traditional left-versus-right ideology and more about whether voters want to reform existing institutions or replace them altogether. That has made governing increasingly difficult for any prime minister." "Economists argue that the country has never fully recovered from the effects of the 2008 global financial crisis. Growth has remained weak, living standards have improved only marginally over nearly two decades, while inflation and rising debt have intensified pressure on governments. Although taxes have reached record levels, an increasing share of government revenue is being spent servicing debt rather than improving public services. Analysts say this has created an electorate that is increasingly dissatisfied regardless of which party is in power." Says structural challenges alone do not explain Britain's political instability and PMs have made costly mistakes: "Theresa May lost authority after an unnecessary general election, Boris Johnson became embroiled in the Partygate scandal, Liz Truss triggered market turmoil through her economic plans, while both Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer struggled to articulate convincing long-term visions for the country. Political analysts argue that several of these errors would likely have seriously damaged governments in any era." "Another important shift has occurred inside Parliament itself. The Brexit years encouraged MPs to organise around specific issues rather than automatically support party leaders. That culture of rebellion has persisted, making it easier for lawmakers to challenge prime ministers even after landslide election victories." "Outside Westminster, social media has transformed political communication. Analysts describe modern politics as increasingly personality-driven, with voters expecting leaders to connect directly through digital platforms while demanding policies tailored to their own preferences. That environment has made it harder for governments to maintain broad public support over time." [But then why have French and US leaders been so consistent , in comparison?] 
https://www.moneycontrol.com/world/why-britain-keeps-changing-prime-ministers-and-why-the-political-turmoil-isn-t-ending-article-13956675.html


 Inaya Folarin Iman, Tucker Reals. The article does not explain why - why the increase number of changes in PM in the last decade or so - but does present the British political system briefly and how regular change is possible.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/uk-prime-minister-keir-starmer-resignation-possible-after-6-leaders-in-10-years/


Hanna Zaidy. "Truss' spell in the hot seat lasted less than two months, after the bond market told her in no uncertain terms where to get off following a plan for unfunded tax cuts that nearly sent UK financial markets into meltdown. Bond market vigilantes aside, Clinton's campaign catchphrase ['it's the economy stupid'] neatly summarizes that it is almost always voters' experience of the economy — felt mostly by what they can and can't afford — that determines how satisfied they are with political leaders." [But much of British politics is preoccupied with immigration concerns these days. And Rishi Sunak was probably the best economist of the lot, yet lost a general election.] "In Britain, politicians are paying dearly for the pervasive sense that life is only getting harder and more expensive. Salaries have barely kept pace with rising consumer prices, meaning people don't feel substantively better off." "Starmer, and the four leaders before him, all correctly diagnosed the UK's perennial low growth problem and made fixing it their top priority." Registers a crumbling infrastructure and housing shortages as problems requiring growth. "UK GDP growth has averaged around 1% a year since May came into power in July 2016, according to consultancy Capital Economics." Explains Starmer's electoral success as the result of gloom about the economy: "Brits were desperate for someone different, having endured 14 years of rule by the opposition Conservative Party…" "Polling has consistently shown that cost of living pressures are the biggest concern for people across the country, so they will undoubtedly have been at the forefront of many voters' minds," said Ben Harrison to CNN, director of the Work Foundation think tank at Lancaster University, following local Labour election losses. 
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/06/23/business/uk-prime-ministers-economy-intl


Ian King. The analysis King offers is unusual here because it places greater emphasis on personal flaws, in competence or character, to explain why UK has been facing its 7th prime minister in the last decade. (King, like various others, makes a comparison with Italy: "That is two more than Italy -- often cited in the U.K. as an example of how not to do things". King notes that, of the last 5, only Sunak lost an election; others were forced out by their own party. "As Luke Tryl, an influential pollster, points out, May demonstrated her lack of prime ministerial qualities by calling an unnecessary election in 2017, during which she threw away a parliamentary majority inherited from David Cameron. Johnson was undone by revelations of his conduct during Covid lockdowns and Truss by the adverse market reaction to her 2022 mini-Budget. Now Starmer is going due to unpopularity, largely self-inflicted, after policy errors including scrapping the pensioners' winter fuel allowance, hitting small farmers with inheritance tax increases and appointing a close friend of the late paedophile Jeffrey Epstein as ambassador to Washington." [No Chagos Islands issue mentioned! And is the whole analysis quoted Tryl's, or just that of May, or...? And, regarding unnecessary election, one needs an election for a democratic mandate, unless one is going to basically continue the policies of the predecessor! And then what's the point: voters prefer associating the policies with this face? Also note: presumably May would have known of Gordon Brown's defeat - a prime minister of the centre left instead but who gives a similar character impression - yet she trod the same path!] King gives some historical background to the recent forcings-out. "The chaos dates back to the defenestration of Margaret Thatcher, viewed by many as Britain's greatest post-war prime minister, in 1990. It was the first time in living memory a sitting prime minister had been forced from office by their own MPs... Conservative MPs have subsequently replaced leaders whenever they have concluded someone else would keep them in government. Starmer's party, Labour, learned from this." [This will be Thatcher's legacy more than privatization of previously state-run industries???] King says, "The U.K. has endured two decades of stagnating productivity and living standards following the global financial crisis, exacerbated by the Brexit vote a decade ago, the pandemic and two energy price shocks. But poor policymaking, in areas such as energy and healthcare, undoubtedly hampered Britain's ability to bounce back from these episodes. So too, in an era of constrained public finances, has a refusal to make hard decisions." [For so many leaders to be taken out by party, are they trying out seemingly lesser figures, in line with my clueless analysis?] More regarding specifically Starmer: "Ruling out tax increases for average earners, who remain more lightly taxed than they have been in 60 years, has left the Treasury dangerously dependent on the top 1% of earners."
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/24/starmer-resigns-as-pm-is-the-uk-ungovernable.html

James Landale. "The story of British politics today can be told by numbers. Five prime ministers in seven years, none of whom served a full parliament. Over the same period, seven foreign secretaries, six chancellors of the exchequer and four cabinet secretaries." "Why is the UK churning through its leaders almost as quickly as Italy once did? Why do voters and MPs bequeath and remove their support with seemingly such casual ease? In short, is Britain becoming ungovernable?" "The first answer may simply be that times are hard for the political classes. This period of history might have tested any generation: the financial crash of 2008, the political chaos of Brexit, the economic body blow of Covid-19, the war in Ukraine and resulting energy shock, and of course the systemic disruption of US President Donald Trump." [Why stability of leadership in France then?] "Sir Anthony Seldon, historian and biographer of many prime ministers, argues some recent incumbents – such as Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Sir Keir – lacked the political abilities to do the job and the humility to get help". He says, "Past prime ministers had mentors. Even Margaret Thatcher had Willie Whitelaw." "But if prime ministers arrive at No 10 with less experience than in the past, some MPs say the civil service is failing to support their prime ministers adequately, claiming Whitehall can be obstructive." Baroness Cavendish, former head of David Cameron's policy unit, told BBC Radio 4's PM programme: "Many Labour ministers have said to me that they might actually agree with what Dominic Cummings [former Boris Johnson adviser] said about parts of the civil service needing reform." "Civil servants, who cannot speak publicly, push back in private, some blaming ministers for failing to give them clear guidance and instructions." A veteran bh said, politicians "are increasingly like children. Agog and overawed at winning office and too frightened to do anything with it once they are there." Some officials says Downing Street is understaffed. Social media is also blamed. [Same response from me: witness leadership stablity elsewhere.]
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqjpe7q0j1xo


Ben Worthy. "If Keir Starmer leaves Downing Street soon, the average time in office of a UK prime minster since Brexit will be just 2 years. To put this in perspective, the Italian Prime Minister Georgia Meloni, in a system that is supposedly a merry-go-round for leaders, would meet her fourth UK Prime Minister. Sadiq Khan would be on his seventh." Regarding Starmer, " The last two PMs to win by similar margins did a decade in power." "Barbara Kellerman [who?] famously argued that bad leadership can be about incompetence or immorality: May and Truss gave us spectacular policy failures, whereas Johnson's morals found him out." "I'm not convinced that Britain is ungovernable," declares Worthy, "any more than it was in the 1970s or 1930s. While poor leadership is part of it, I'd argue it's a broader problem around three Fs: (perceived) failure, fraying relations and fragmentation." Much of the articles focuses on the specific case of Starmer. "The public had very high expectations and are now quite severely disappointed. His inability to deliver, and his indecisiveness, are now very clear in the public mind." "Starmer's failure then flows into the second factor, that of fraying relations with Labour MPs. This is partly a long term problem. Since the 1970s, MPs of both parties have become more rebellious and less loyal: the rejected, the ejected, and the dejected have a greater influence." A number of Labour MPs apparently think that Starmer's electoral success was because of rival Rishi Sunak. [His failure, his ethnicity?] " Fragmentation. Rob Ford and others have long seen the deep fragmentation happening across British politics, meaning elections are no longer a two horse race… Britain ‘has now entered an unprecedented era of multi-party politics' as voters now choose between four rather than two parties." 
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/why-is-the-uk-losing-so-many-prime-ministers/


Sara Hobolt. Says Theersa May was forced to resign after failing to deliver a Brexit deal. "Unlike Cameron and May, Brexit was not the immediate cause of the downfall of their successors, Johnson (2022), Truss (2022), Sunak (2024) and now Starmer (2026). Yet the Brexit vote contributed to a more fundamental shift in British politics that has made governing more difficult and leadership less secure." [A different analysis for each one?] "Voters are more volatile and less loyal to traditional parties in the aftermath of Brexit." "Brexit identities often proved stronger than traditional partisan attachments  and cut across established parties alignments. This has encouraged voters to think differently about politics. Without strong emotional attachments to the traditional parties, the honeymoon period for prime ministers has become shorter, as voters are willing to look elsewhere for more attractive alternatives when they are dissatisfied with the incumbent." "MPs have also become more prone to rebel. The Brexit process increased tensions and instability within the parliamentary parties and generated unusually high levels of rebellion and dissent. This was particularly true during Theresa May's premiership, as MPs found themselves divided by Brexit rather than united by party loyalty. The referendum created a new political cleavage in Parliament that cut across traditional party lines, making it harder for party leaders to maintain discipline and secure support for key legislation."
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/brexit-10-is-brexit-to-blame-for-the-churn-of-prime-ministers/

Shuchi Shukla. "Less than two years after a landslide, the man who promised stability had become the latest illustration of a peculiarly modern British phenomenon: the prime minister as a seasonal fixture, arriving in fanfare and departing before the term is up." Suggests simply different analyses for different prime ministers. "Theresa May (2019) was ground down by Brexit: a botched 2017 election cost her a majority, and she quit after she failed to persuade Parliament to back the Brexit agreement she negotiated with the European Union. Her successor Boris Johnson (2022) somehow managed to sail through the "Partygate" lockdown scandal but stepped down weeks later when his handling of the Chris Pincher affair led to the resignations of more than 35 ministers. Liz Truss (2022) had the shortest tenure in British history after a tax-cutting mini-budget spooked financial markets. Rishi Sunak (2024) was the outlier. He was removed by voters at the general election, not his own party like the rest. Now Keir Starmer (2026) takes the party-revolt route, pushed out as Labour's standing collapsed and Reform UK surged." Seems to ask why the pattern, but actually answers why this is possible within British rules. "Why does this keep happening? The mechanism is constitutional, not accidental. The House of Commons Library explains that when a prime minister resigns mid-term while the government still holds a Commons majority, the governing party identifies a successor under its own internal rules, and the prime minister only formally resigns once that process is complete. British politics allows parties to change leader midterm without the need for a general election, after which the monarch invites the new party leader to form a government. This is the engine of "seasonality", a ruling party can replace the country's leader without ever returning to the voters." Goes on to explain Keir Starmer's woes and why Andy Burnham has benefitted.
https://www.timesnownews.com/world/uk/why-britain-six-prime-ministers-seven-years-keir-starmer-andy-burnham-article-154732958

Toby Helm.  Somewhat messy article contains some useful information and bits of analysis. Quotes political editor for television's ITV News, Robert Peston: "We are now one of those ridiculous countries which are incapable of delivering stable government." Later tells us: " Between 2011 and 2022, Italy, for example, cycled through six different leaders." Tells us, "David Cameron quit in June 2016 after six years, his credibility shot by the disastrous loss of the Brexit referendum that he himself had called. Then with Brexit's effects and the COVID pandemic both adversely hitting the national finances and mood, the task of governing became ever more difficult by the month. Money was critically short. Demands on health and other services were growing, but the cash to fund them adequately was simply not there. Young people, the COVID generation, who had had Brexit foisted on them by their elders, were hearing from endless reports and surveys that they would be the first generation in living memory that would not grow up to be better off than their parents." There is some case-by-case analysis, which indicates personal factors more important than this general analysis suggests. "Theresa May fell on her sword in 2019, when she failed to break a parliamentary deadlock over how Britain should navigate its departure from the E.U. Boris Johnson's more colourful occupancy of No. 10 followed, but he was forced out after a similar length of time, dragged down by COVID chaos and accusations that parties at Downing Street broke the very social-distancing rules he had asked the nation to abide by. His successor Liz Truss' tenure of just 45 days was a disaster. Her controversial mini-budget of unfunded borrowing unleashed complete panic on the financial markets." Anthony Seldon, a political historian of recent times, who has charted the careers of every U.K. Prime Minister, ..."says too often the choices were either too young or too inexperienced, or both. As a result, if and when they reached No. 10, they turned out to struggle with the job."  [Why add "too young" to "too inexperienced"?] Seldon says, "Boris Johnson thought he could just run the country like he had run the London mayoralty (which he occupied from 2008 to 2016). Theresa May thought she could move to No. 10 and run it like her previous job as Home Secretary. They just failed to recognize the opportunity and the scale of the challenge that fell to them." Hannah White, CEO of the Institute for Government, says: "U.K. Prime Ministers have an ever-diminishing window to deliver perceptible change before the public and fellow MPs lose confidence and begin to contemplate changing them for a more promising candidate." A problem raised by commentators (including Rob Ford): Conservative and Labour parties ask party memberships to choose leaders and they sometimes choose unwisely or don't choose he leader their MPs [Ministers for Parliament] want. [Did conservatives vote racistly for Truss?] "Andrew Haldenby, managing director of the Effective Governance Forum, a cross-party Westminster campaign for better government in the U.K., says Prime Ministers are way more vulnerable than U.S. Presidents." A U president is guaranteed 4 years, whereas party discontent can force out a prime minister. [But this does not explain the trend since 2016 specifically.] 
https://time.com/article/2026/06/27/burnham-britain-why-u-k-is-set-to-get-its-seventh-prime-minister-in-10-years/

Stephen Anderson. Article contains a lot of information, includes tables and graphs, but doesn't even answer the question of why so many Prime Ministers in the last decade until the conclusion, rather than laying out answer and supporting it, before a concluding summary! On 11 May, "More than 30 Labour MPs echoed the call for his resignation [Keir Starmer's] or a departure timetable." UK has had 19 prime ministers since 1945. "However, the dynamic has fundamentally shifted in recent decades. The average tenure of a UK Prime Minister since 2010 is a mere 2.8 years. More tellingly, since 1979, four out of nine Prime Ministers were effectively removed by their own party rather than by the voters." " The parliamentary system allows the governing party to change the Prime Minister without consulting the public, simply by changing their leader. It is a safety valve, but one that is increasingly being used as a panic button." Parties do this when a leader becomes unpopular with the electorate. "There is empirical evidence to support this strategy. Political science research, such as the work by Pedersen and Schumacher (2015), demonstrates the existence of a "new leader bounce." When a party changes its leader, it typically gains between 2 and 5 points in the polls during the first month. The media focus shifts, past failures are partially forgiven as the fault of the predecessor, and the new leader is granted a brief honeymoon period." Argues Conservatives are experts at this. Exmple: "By replacing the deeply divisive Thatcher with the reassuring, collegiate John Major, the Conservatives managed to defuse the anger over the Poll Tax and went on to win the 1992 general election -- an outcome that looked highly improbable just months earlier." But "unless accompanied by genuine, substantive policy changes and a compelling new vision, the bounce typically fades within three to six months." Gordon Brown's 10 point poll surge, followed by electoral defeat. Also: "A leadership contest means weeks or months of policy paralysis. Ministers are focused on campaigning rather than governing. Civil servants put major decisions on hold, knowing a new Prime Minister will bring new priorities." And the electoral win was based on the previous leader's manifesto, presumably. An internally-chosen new leader with a new identity lacks electoral mandate. Argues UK system allows for more volatility than France, USA, and Germany. Article goes on to consider whether getting rid of Starmer is a good move and examines the potential replacements. Conclusion: "The revolving door at Number 10 is a symptom of a deeper malaise in British politics. This reflects a system that is increasingly impatient, reactive, and focused on short-term tactical advantage rather than long-term strategic governance." [This is not argued for and there is insufficient attention to what changed in the last decade, to result in these qualities.] Blandly says, "Britain does not just need a new Prime Minister every few years; it needs a political culture that values stability, long-term planning, and the courage to see difficult decisions through." [This article seems an application for the assistant job. "Expert, you work out the answer and I can provide with you with some good tables for your book and historical examples you may wish to refer to and research done by others it is unwise to ignore."]
https://medium.com/reimagined-world-politics/why-britain-keeps-changing-prime-ministers-and-whether-it-actually-works-8c7a4448c536
(Some data from the tables. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (1979-90), defenestrated by own party; John Major (90-97), lost general election; Tony Blair (97-07), resigned under party pressure; Gordon Brown (07-10), lost general election; David Cameron (10-16), resigned after Brexit referendum; Theresa May (16-19), resigned, Brexit impasse; Boris Johnson (19-22), defenestrated by own party; Liz Truss (22, 45 days), defenestrated / resigned; Rishi Sunak (22-24), lost general election; Keir Starmer (24-26), under pressure. And UK, average leader tenure 4 years; France 7 years; Germany 9 years; USA 6 years.)

Kate Holton and Andrew Macaskill. "The sixth leader to quit in 10 years. The highest rate of political turnover in almost two centuries." Says, "Like his predecessors, Starmer failed to stem popular anger over living standards, which have stagnated since the 2008 financial crash, while ballooning national debt due to global shocks like the COVID pandemic has shackled government spending. The failure to tackle illegal immigration has also sown deep political divisions." "Anthony Seldon, a historian who has charted the fortunes of UK prime ministers in books such as "The Impossible Office", said Britain was in a very deep hole after Starmer and predecessors such as Liz Truss and Boris Johnson failed to inspire confidence and trust by setting out a clear narrative." "While many analysts link Britain's instability to the Brexit vote 10 years ago this week to leave the European Union, Jill Rutter, a former finance ministry official and a senior fellow at the Institute of Government (IfG) think tank, said it started with the crash [the global financial crisis of 2008]." [That affected various countries, without changing-leadership consequence.] "In 2016, Britain ripped up its long-term foreign policy model by voting to leave the EU... Its financial response to the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine also pushed national debt levels to just below 100% of GDP...  Britain has higher borrowing costs in part due to sticky inflation and concern about its reliance on foreign investors to fund its deficit. That constraint on spending has hit living standards badly." "Sam Freedman, a former government adviser, argued in his recent book "Failed State: Why Nothing Works and How We Fix It", that Britain was too centralised and its key offices of state too small to cope." "On top of that the IfG's Rutter and Roger Gale, one of Britain's longest-serving lawmakers who entered parliament in 1983, said the culture of British politics has got worse. Rolling television channels and social media force politicians to make decisions at speed." [Social media: then why stable leadership in USA, France, etc.?] Ends with Rushi Sunak on the incoming Andy Burnham: "Without that [a plan], he will become yet another prime minister lying awake fretting about why it isn't working."
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/can-anyone-fix-britain-regular-change-pm-symptom-uks-malaise-2026-06-22/

Nik Dirga. "Starmer's resignation sets up the UK for its seventh prime minister since July 2016, when David Cameron's six years in office - which now seems a positively leisurely term - came to an end. Not a single prime minister has served a full term in office since." "Like New Zealand, Britain's parliamentary system doesn't require a general election to change prime ministers. If a party loses confidence in its leader, a PM may resign before a humiliating leadership vote forces them out. And in the last 10 years, this has happened five times." "There are many factors driving the turnover - lingering fallout from the Brexit vote and 2008 economic crisis, as well as rising calls for electoral reform of the UK's first-past-the-post system. That system has seen results such as Labour receiving 33.7 percent of the vote in 2024 yet getting a massive 174-seat majority in the House of Commons." [Why do the calls for reform of voting system lead to many changes of leader? There is no evidence changing leader changes this system!] "British writer and academic Andre Spicer recently told RNZ expectations from leaders have created a cycle of overpromising and underdelivering that's causing shorter and shorter political careers." Quote from Spicer: "They realise very quickly that number one, you can't deliver on many of the promises which you've made. You're often told by a senior civil servant, you can achieve one, maybe two things as prime minister. And you've promised hundreds, if not thousands." Interesting paradox: "Paradoxically, Watson said while voter polls indicate people are fed up with the status quo in Britain, they're also sick of leadership changes." Article presents some statistics: Theresa May lasted 3 years 12 days; Boris Johnson 3 years 45 days; Liz Truss 49 days; Rishi Sunak 1 year 255 days [a computer whiz - VGA has 256 colours!]; Keir Starmet - 2 years and 13 days so far. Article asks: to what extent the frequent change is caused by Brexit? Answers: kind-of. Some PMs were brought down by Brexit: David Cameron failed in his remain campaign; Theresa May failed to secure parliamentary support for her deal. But other PMs were ousted for other resons: Boris Johnson for parties which broke Covid-19 lockdown rules; Liz Truss for controversial tax plans [the article does not mention their frightening effect on the economy!]. Says Rishi Sunak lost an election severely, but does not explain why [given he knew the most about economics and what happened with Truss]. Much attention to why Keir Starmer failed, despite starting with a huge majority. "His former adviser Peter Mandelson was revealed to be close to Jeffrey Epstein..." Quotes Robert Patman, international relations professor at the University of Otago: "I think that Starmer, one of the reasons he fell, he's got a good intellect, but I don't think he's got good political instincts." [I should go into politics and show Patman what lack of political instincts really is???] By the way, qUotes Patman quite a few times earlier in this article. Regarding Brexit, "It's been a financial disaster, as many people predicted; probably the worst policy decision since appeasement in the 1930s." ""There's a clear trend to rejoin the EU. And that will happen, I think." [Doubt this. Farage, a leading Brexit campaigner, is even more popular than in 2016 and I suspect many pro-remain Brits don't want to overturn a democratic decision, rather move on.] Putnam further says: "My hunch is that Burnham may well do well - a street fighter." [Burnham getting in without a leadership contest makes him look an overly privileged type, who gets the job without going through the normal fair-minded procedures, if I dare to say that.]
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/617267/explainer-why-has-britain-gone-through-seven-prime-ministers-in-10-years

Samriddhi Vij. A brief Instagram video, largely quoted here. Britain is about to get its 7th prime minister in a decade. 5 reasons why they keep changing. (1) Brexit - instead of fixing deeper economic problems, MPs were involved in endless EU debates. (2) Weak leadership - every prime minister since 2016 struggled with scandals, crises, or political failures. [Why are they all weak though? My "off-the-radar" explanation of an experiment in promoting seemingly mid-tier material, in case one is not?] (3) Economic stagnation - the UK never recovered from 2008 financial crises. Growth stayed weak, wages flat, and public frustration kept rising. (4) Party rebellion - British PMs can be taken down by their own ministers of parliament and party wars have become a constant. [But why this constant?] (5) Social media politics - social media has transformed politics into a 24/7 performance, making leaders rise fast and fall evenf faster. [Why is this effect not evident elsewhere, e.g. USA or France?]
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DaIY7drA1gF/
(Note: video style is somewhat similar to: https://www.instagram.com/drcamimorelli/ Who invented the style?]

worldtimeinsta. An instagram video. Begins with why it is possible for prime ministers to be changed so quickly in UK, compared to USA: MPs (ministers of parliament) can oust a PM. Then says, "Brexit shattered traditional political loyalities," so PMs faced opposition from wings of their own party, and were often ousted by their own party. And "When economic conditions worsen, MPs often look to change leader than wait for elections." Since 2016 Britain has faced: Brexit-related disruptions, COVID-19, inflation and a cost-of-living crisis, energy shocks, and slow economic growth.
https://www.instagram.com/p/DZ63S0EiuHB

Philip Collins, on BBC Newsnight. Tony Blair's former speech writer. Thinks there are 2 reasons for why we are heading for a 7th prime minister in... years. One is we have become incredibly impatient. The interviewer, Victoria Derbyshire, reminds him of Keir Starmer's opening speech, that changing a country is not like flicking a switch. This will take a while. Collins agrees and thinks it takes longer than 2 years. His second reason is that if you have a country where people have not had a payrise in 15 years, politics will be turbulent. That is inevitable. 
https://www.instagram.com/p/DZ9ZV6QKLaG/

towardspublicpolicy. On the opening slide, says "6 Prime Ministers in 14 years. 2010-2026"! The next slide too, but registers that Starmer was from 2024-2026! Average tenure 1.7, years. India has had 3 prime ministers since 2004, Germany 4 chancellors since 2005, Uk 6 since 2016. Presents the British political system: citizens elect MPs (ministers of parliament), MPs determine who forms the government,the leader of the majority becomes PM. If MPs lose confidence in leader, no national election needed to oust them. No public vote required. His or her party can replace a PM internally. Says Brexit shattered political unity (a cause of change): 51.9% voted leave, 48.1% remain. Says a decade of shocks (a cause of change): Brexit disruptions, Covid-19 pandemic, energy crisis, high inflation, cost of living crisis, slow economic growth. Liz Truss presented as most dramatic example of a leadership collapse: her mini-budget created market panic, falling pound, rising borrowing costs. Social media is also blamed: instant social media backlash to decisions, 24/7 media scrutiny, daily polling pressure. [Why not this problem elsewhere then, e.g. USA or France?] Asks "Could India face the same problem?" India has additional stabilizers: anti-defection law, strong party leadership structures, more centralized decision-making [incoming Burnham plans to decentralize further - will this social media stop him?], larger electoral mandates [Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer had large ones]. 
https://www.instagram.com/p/DZ6UCWqEpwr/?img_index=6

George Osborne. Former Chancellor of the Exchequer. The reason for why Britain has had so many prime ministers in the last decade is not they are all incompetent or stupid, rather the lack of a proper plan, merely an announcement by the newest prime minister that he is better than the previous one. They have not come to terms with a post-Brexit Britain or Britain in a new age of political communication or Britain in an age of DOnald Trump or waning European and British economic power. An organizing principle, an organizing theory is needed. (20 July.)
https://www.instagram.com/reels/Da-PmjCssB-/


Terence Rajivan Edward. As unwilling-to-explain expert Tony McNulty entails, I am bewildered. I offer 2 explanations, totally different from all the others, both of which say that the political class of UK are conducting experiments on the voting public. The first explanation derives from a philosophical analogy. Imagine some sand piled up. A grain is added. Another grain. A third grain. Etc. At some point it is a heap. But when exactly, if there is an exact point? Similarly we are given an unsuitable overpromoted midtier politician as Prime Minister: Liz Truss. Unsurprisingly she does not last long, being unsuitable. Keir Starmer was slightly better. The political class wonder whether somewhere in the set of seemingly midtier politicians, of very slightly different ability, is one who crosses over the line, like the pile of sand with the extra grain that makes it now a heap: he/she is actually top tier! But we must try many to find out! The second explanation is that the political class are investigating at what point the great British public prefers an ethnic minority leader over a midtier fiery white man or white woman: never; if they are slightly better, or if they are a political genius???
https://www.instagram.com/p/DanTAu1uSrV/

CBS News. Offers a prime-by-prime minister analysis. David Cameron resigned after the vote in favour of learving the European Union, against Cameron's campaign. Theresa May: critics say she is defined by failed attempts to negotiate a separation agreement with the EU, causing her downfall. Boris Johnson, aq major figure in the Brexit movement, secured a separation deal but faced multiple scandals, and brought down by having parties (in the fun sense) during nationwide lockdown to protect against Covid-19: Partygate. Liz Truss had the shortest tenure in British history, 49 days, and was brought down by budget proposals that called for 10s of billions of cuts and caused the currency to plummet. Rishi Sunak struggled to overcome the economic crisis and the impact of continuing wars abroad: Ukraine and the Middle East. Keir Starmer was undone by multiple scandals, including the appointment of Peter Mandelson as UK ambassador to the US, despite concerns being raised about his links to convinced sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in the vetting process. [Why have a new Prime Minister with no due process? No competition against rival candidates for the job.] Also local Labour election losses undermined Starmer. Video then explains how it is possible within the British system to oust the prime minister: dissatisfaction from fellow MPs allows this. Theresa May and Boris Johnson faced votes over no confidence, survived, but resigned shortly after.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q_Ya73-rDU

Alexander Nicholl. Andy Burnham is almost certain to become 7th prime minister in 10 years. Has the country's democracy become unstable? Is Britain ungovernable? Nicholls starts out by offering a case-by-case analysis for the departure of each prime minister since 2016, before referring to populist politics as the general explanation, which has led to less patience with mainstream politicians. He observes that much the same populist tendencies exist beyond UK but does not then explain why the many changes of political leader do not occur elsewhere, to make this reference to populism-as-cause convincing! Here is his prime minister-by-prime minister account. "David Cameron resigned of his own accord, after voters opted to leave the European Union in the 2016 Brexit referendum." "Pressure from within their own parties forced the other four leaders to step down: Theresa May, who unexpectedly inherited the task of negotiating the terms of leaving the EU, succumbed to constant rebellion from Boris Johnson and ardent Brexiteers who wanted a 'harder' break from Europe than she did." "Johnson pushed through a complete separation, known as a "hard Brexit"  but ran a ramshackle government beset by scandals. Most notably he held parties held at 10 Downing Street, his official residence, during the Covid lockdown. His ministers eventually resigned en masse, and he was replaced by Liz Truss. Her downfall came after she had to reverse a large programme of tax cuts that ended up destabilizing the economy. She lasted just 49 days." "Only by appointing an economically sound leader in Sunak did the Conservatives limp to the 2024 election, which they lost badly." Divisions within amongst right-wing voters, with the rise of the Reform Party led by Nigel Farage in addition to the Conservatives, are used to explain Keir Starmer's electoral success: his party Labour actually onyl won 33% of votes. Labour was vulnerable if either right-wing party gained momentum and Reform did. "Starmer squandered the opportunity for big reforms that a large majority offers. Starmer was indecisive, unable to offer a vision or even much of a policy programme. He made clumsy choices and blunders. His manner was lawyerly, bureaucratic, wooden. It became increasingly clear that he could not win the next election." "Why have the main parties been changing their leaders so many times? According to Seldon [Anthony Seldon, historian of British politics], it is partly because of the "cavalier way" that various incumbents acted in office and then used geopolitical and financial upheavals as excuses for their poor performance." Nicholl says this is not the only factor: also populist politics. [Nicholl cannot agree with Seldon, given his analysis of Starmer as not using the support from election to make big changes.] When analysing populist politics, Nicholl writes, "by wide agreement, severely damaged Britain’s economy. But there is now growing support for renewing ties with Europe. The Brexit issue also turned previously existing tension between the centre and the right of the Conservative party into open conflict, and tore the party apart." Other aspects of populist politics he draws attention to are large wealth inequalities, resented by ordinary people, and holding politicians in low reagrd. Journalist Camilla Cavendish says, "Taxpayers do not feel that their hard work is respected or rewarded."
https://news-decoder.com/can-british-voters-stop-the-revolving-door-to-being-prime-minister/