Everyone says that Britain shouldn't function this way. That the chaos of six prime ministers in one decade is not "normal" for one of the world's most stable and oldest democracies. But what if, in the end, it is? As Andy Burnham prepares, barring any surprises, to become the seventh person in ten years called upon to form a government, he faces a Labour Party full of inexperienced MPs who politically "grew up" during the Brexit era. Of the 103 Labour MPs who have publicly called for Prime Minister Keir Starmer's resignation in recent weeks, 63 were elected for the first time in 2024. Most lack substantial experience in the House of Commons from before 2016, a period of much greater political stability, during which the country had only eight prime ministers in nearly half a century.
In fact, several Labour MPs, including Sam Carling and Rosie Wrighting, who also called for Starmer's departure, were still teenagers when Britain voted to leave the European Union exactly ten years ago. For many of them, toppling party leaders is almost the only political reality they have ever known. "They are just as bad as the Conservatives," commented a former senior government official on condition of anonymity. "They are tearing down prime ministers instead of dealing with the real policy problems the country faces."
The new political normalcy
Replacing prime ministers during a parliamentary term is not unprecedented in British history. However, the current pace of change is extremely unusual. This is the environment in which Andy Burnham will have to operate if he is confirmed in the coming weeks as the new Labour leader and prime minister. Philip Cowley, a professor of politics at Queen Mary University of London, notes: "Since 1945, the majority of prime ministers took office in the middle of a parliamentary term. But perhaps something different is happening today. Perhaps leaders now have much less time to make mistakes and fix them. And perhaps this has now become a learned political behavior."
Brexit and its unintended consequences
The breakdown of party discipline in British politics began, at least initially, as a conscious choice. Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron, who called the Brexit referendum, officially suspended the principle of cabinet collective responsibility during the campaign and allowed his MPs to support whichever side they wished. As he later wrote in his memoir For the Record: "For ten years I had fought to keep the Conservative Party united on the issue of Europe. This was the moment it would begin to divide again, with friends and colleagues taking opposite positions on an issue of fundamental national importance." Cameron lost the referendum and resigned a few hours later. Although throughout the campaign he maintained that he would not leave the premiership even if the exit from the EU prevailed, he ultimately did exactly that. His decision today seems to have inaugurated a new political trend.
The "revolving door" of Downing Street
After Cameron's departure, Theresa May assumed the premiership, promising to make Brexit a success. However, the early election call in 2017 turned into a political failure, and two years later, she too was removed. She was succeeded by Boris Johnson, who won a comfortable parliamentary majority in 2019. Despite this, a series of scandals culminated in 2022 with the mass resignation of ministers, leading to his fall. Announcing his departure from the premiership, Johnson famously stated: "As we have seen at Westminster, the herd instinct is strong. And when the herd moves, it moves massively." This was followed by the short tenure of Liz Truss, who collapsed within a few weeks under the pressure of her own MPs. Subsequently, Rishi Sunak took over for about two years until his defeat by Starmer in the 2024 election.
Starmer promised stability but sank into uncertainty
After his landslide victory, Keir Starmer pledged to end the political chaos and restore stability to the country's governance. Simply put, he promised to make politics boring again. But both for voters and for many of his MPs, who were waiting for the "big change" he had promised, steady and technocratic management did not prove enough. In the eyes of his critics, Starmer did not even achieve that. His premiership was characterized by constant U-turns and changes of course on key policies, often under the pressure of his own MPs. Voters struggled to understand exactly what he was trying to implement and what he was trying to overturn. Meanwhile, polls recorded an intense personal dislike toward Starmer, which even experts found difficult to explain. His popularity collapsed faster than that of any previous prime minister.
The rise of Nigel Farage and the pressure on Labour
Within just one year of the triumphant election victory, Labour found itself trailing in the polls behind Nigel Farage's populist Reform UK. Defeats in local and regional elections followed, reinforcing the feeling of panic within the party. For many Labour MPs, it was impossible to ignore the anger of an electorate that appears much more volatile than in the past. Although Brexit is no longer the dominant political issue, the dividing lines it created between pro-European and Euroskeptic forces continue to decisively influence election results.
The "Brexit Generation" and the loss of patience
In the past, new governments enjoyed a period of political tolerance after taking power. Today, this seems to have changed. "Voters are now less forgiving, and because the electorate is more volatile, MPs have become more volatile, too," points out Cowley. Labour MPs feared that Starmer was leading the party into a political "dead zone," where it risked disappearing as a dominant political force. The heavy defeats in Wales, Scotland, and English local government last month confirmed that Labour's prolonged polling collapse was not a coincidence. As Cowley notes: "I wonder if the first thought now is much faster that perhaps the leader should be changed."
The difficult mission of Andy Burnham
Even if Andy Burnham assumes the premiership, his mission will be no easier than that of his predecessors. He is considered clearly better at communication than Starmer and more capable of connecting with voters, particularly in northern England. Moreover, he proved he could defeat Nigel Farage's Reform UK in the recent Makerfield by-election. However, he does not have a direct popular mandate at a national level.
His political legitimacy currently rests on the votes of fewer than 25,000 citizens in his new constituency, and he has not yet presented a comprehensive plan for governance. In fact, he was not even an MP when the British last voted for the formation of a government. The big gamble for Burnham will be to turn a local election victory into a national political success — and quickly. Otherwise, the so-called "Brexit Generation" of MPs may soon begin to wonder again if there is someone else who could do the job better.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών