The United Kingdom is preparing for a new transition of power, with the resignation of Keir Starmer as prime minister. The Labor politician’s departure, which is expected to take place in the coming weeks, will pave the way for the country’s sixth head of government in just seven years, a period of notable instability. Former Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham emerges as the most likely successor to the now unpopular Starmer.
In a statement made in front of number 10 Downing Street, in London, on the morning of June 22, 2026, Starmer formalized his departure. He will step down after less than two years, in a term marked by abrupt political shifts and growing public disapproval.
- Resignation confirmed:Keir Starmer announced his decision to step down under pressure from parliamentarians from his own party, making him the seventh British Prime Minister in a decade.
- Name for succession:Andy Burnham, former mayor of Greater Manchester, has already been sworn in as MP and is the favorite to replace Starmer. Wes Streeting, former health minister and another possible candidate, declared support for Burnham and ruled out his own candidacy.
- Turbulent political panorama:Starmer’s resignation comes just two years after the centre-left Labor Party achieved a landslide victory in parliament. The event takes place almost ten years after the referendum that decided for Great Britain to leave the European Union, a period that plunged the nation into continuous political instability.
Analysis: the factors that precipitated Keir Starmer’s departure after landslide victory
Less than two years ago, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer led the Labor Party to its biggest parliamentary majority of the century, inflicting their worst-ever defeat on the Conservatives. However, the British public’s disillusionment with Starmer was almost immediate after the election.
Despite having withstood months of adversity, the pressure for his resignation became unsustainable. Starmer ends his term as the least popular prime minister in British history.
However, there is a feeling of incomprehension in the UK about how quickly the situation has deteriorated. Unlike his predecessors, Starmer did not find himself embroiled in unpopular foreign wars, nor did he fail to manage pandemics or cause an economic collapse.
Its mistakes were more routine: an initiative to increase the contribution of richer retirees to heating their homes, a plan to cut benefits for people with disabilities, the acceptance of perks and, in recent months, a scandal involving the appointment of Peter Mandelson, a politician linked to Jeffrey Epstein, to the post of UK ambassador in Washington.
Political errors alone do not exhaust the explanations for Starmer’s downfall. There are two other important factors. The first lies in its political heritage.
When Starmer took office, Britain was exhausted by the decade of Tory austerity. This cost-cutting program, designed to reduce debt and aid in the post-2008 financial crisis recovery, failed on both counts, resulting in exponentially greater debt and anemic economic growth.
The second reason for Starmer’s downfall is of a more personal nature. He failed to articulate a clear and easily understood political philosophy. Without a cohesive narrative that unified its government project, many of the Labor Party’s decisions appeared arbitrary. Starmer failed, in part, because “Starmerism” never took hold as an ideology.