Starmer Resigns After Two Years, Becoming Britain's Sixth Prime Minister to Fall in a Decade

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced his resignation on June 22, stepping down as both prime minister and Labour Party leader just two years after leading the party to a historic general election landslide. Battered by a cabinet revolt, collapsing approval ratings, and public attacks from the United States president, Starmer delivered an emotional farewell address outside 10 Downing Street. Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester Mayor who secured a parliamentary seat through a by-election only last week, is widely regarded as the frontrunner to succeed him and could enter Downing Street as early as mid-July.

The resignation came on the eve of the tenth anniversary of the Brexit referendum — a timing that was not lost on British commentators. As The Guardian noted, Britain has now seen six prime ministers fall through internal revolt or electoral defeat in a single decade: David Cameron, forced out by the referendum result; Theresa May, Boris Johnson, and Liz Truss, each removed by Conservative MPs; Rishi Sunak, rejected at the ballot box; and now Starmer, whose approval rating collapsed to just 13% against a dissatisfaction rating of 79%. Britain once mocked Italy for its revolving-door governments. Today, observers suggest, the comparison has reversed.

Starmer's exit was not a sudden decision. Pressure had been building since Labour's local election rout in late May, reaching its breaking point over a weekend at Chequers, the prime ministerial country retreat.

The cabinet meeting on June 19 was, by multiple accounts, a brutal confrontation. Starmer attempted to argue that his chief rival — Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham — should first be required to prove himself by helping Labour win elections. A cabinet minister was blunt in response: Starmer had become a liability on the ballot, they said, and the parliamentary party had withdrawn its support entirely.

British media generally attribute Starmer's reluctance to stand down to two factors: deep personal animosity toward Burnham, and pressure from within his own family. Starmer reportedly believed Burnham had repeatedly sought to undermine him during moments of political weakness, and privately questioned whether Burnham had the substance to govern. His wife Victoria, meanwhile, was said to be a forceful voice urging him to keep fighting. "She was the one pushing him to stay," allies confided to the media.

In the end, political gravity prevailed. Education Secretary Jacqui Smith and Business Secretary Peter Kyle confirmed in media interviews that Starmer had spent the entire weekend carefully weighing the national interest — and that in making his final decision, he placed country above party.

At approximately 9:30 a.m. London time on June 22, Starmer stepped outside Downing Street to deliver his final address as prime minister. The Guardian's correspondents noted a palpably sombre atmosphere; Starmer himself appeared visibly stricken. Cabinet ministers and staff — above all Victoria — struggled to conceal their emotion. The address was briefly disrupted when activist Steve Bray blasted Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" through a loudspeaker, nearly drowning out Starmer's voice, before someone pulled the plug and silence was restored.

In his remarks, Starmer mounted a defence of his record, insisting he had proved his critics wrong. He cited economic performance that outpaced comparable nations, the end of austerity, the fastest reduction in NHS waiting lists in 17 years, significant expansions of workers' and tenants' rights, the largest increase in defence spending since the Cold War, and the eradication of antisemitism from the Labour Party.

On the question of why he was standing down, Starmer chose his words with care. The question within the party, he acknowledged, had shifted — from "who can lead Labour to govern?" to "am I still the best person to lead us into the next general election?" "I have heard my parliamentary party's answer to that question," he said, "and I accept it." Near the close of his speech, his voice broke as he spoke of devoting more time to what mattered most: being a good husband and a father to two teenagers.

Starmer's resignation immediately triggered Labour's internal succession process. Burnham's path had been cleared by his by-election victory in the Makerfield constituency the previous week, which secured him a seat in the House of Commons — a prerequisite for the premiership. Starmer outlined a timetable in his address: Labour's National Executive Committee (NEC) would open the nomination process on July 9.

If Burnham faces no challenger — a scenario that appears increasingly likely, though Health Secretary Wes Streeting had previously signalled he would run — the process could conclude before Parliament rises for its summer recess, expected around July 16, with Burnham formally entering Downing Street as early as July 17. Should a contested race emerge, the process would extend to late August, with a new leader confirmed before Parliament reconvenes on September 1. In either scenario, Starmer will remain as caretaker prime minister until a successor is in place.

Starmer's biographer Tom Baldwin captured the awkward irony of the moment: "We seem to be in the strange position where Starmer is being told he must resign by the very people causing chaos — to prevent more chaos — while simultaneously being asked to stay on for several months because the person most eager to replace him isn't quite ready yet."

The Burnham camp is pushing hard for a July handover. Supporters fear that a prolonged transition would create a power vacuum, leaving the incoming prime minister exposed to a delegitimisation campaign — online and otherwise — before he has even taken office. The parallel being drawn is the summer of 2022, when Boris Johnson's lame-duck premiership left the government effectively paralysed in the face of the energy crisis.

With the governing party in disarray, opposition leaders moved quickly. Reform UK leader Nigel Farage called loudly for an immediate general election, arguing that Burnham's by-election victory in Makerfield — secured on fewer than 25,000 votes — gave him no national mandate to walk into Downing Street without facing the country. Farage branded Labour and the Conservatives a "uniparty establishment" retreating in fear from Reform's rise.

The Conservative response was more measured. Shadow Cabinet Office minister Alex Burghart acknowledged that a change of prime minister does not constitutionally require a general election, but argued that the real question was Labour's broader legitimacy. "You can change the person at the top, but if the MPs below haven't changed how they think and vote, nothing changes." He conceded nonetheless that rotating prime ministers every few years was "very bad" for Britain.

Criticism also arrived from abroad. US President Donald Trump posted on social media attacking Starmer's record on immigration and energy policy, declaring that resignation had been inevitable and calling for Britain to reopen North Sea oil production.

If Starmer's list of policy achievements appeared substantial — and if he had neither triggered an economic crisis like Liz Truss nor accumulated the scandals that brought down Boris Johnson — the question demands an answer: how did he exhaust his political capital within two years?

Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee pointed to a deep reservoir of public anger accumulated over two decades of economic stagnation. "Starmer communicated his policies badly," she argued. "It began with flat speeches, then Chancellor Rachel Reeves announcing that dismal fiscal black hole, followed by the donations scandal, cuts to the winter fuel allowance, the farmers' tax, and the handling of Gaza — each one adding to a cumulative sense of disappointment."

Former Cabinet Secretary Gus O'Donnellraised a more structural concern: that the problem may lie in the rigidity of party manifestos. When external circumstances shift dramatically — war in the Middle East, a surge in inflation — policy commitments that were perfectly reasonable at the time of an election can become unworkable in the new environment. Political analyst Chris Clarke argued that modern politicians are trapped by a low-trust dynamic: the information age subjects them to extreme scrutiny and impossible expectations, while the actual policy levers available to governments have narrowed, pushing major parties toward convergence and leaving voters feeling powerless.

Among Starmer's remaining supporters, Labour MP John Slinger gave voice to genuine frustration: "Starmer has a mandate given to him by the British people. Those challenging him couldn't even be bothered to mount a formal challenge. Coronations are for kings, not prime ministers."

Whatever the verdict of Westminster's internal debate, the challenges facing Britain will not pause for a change of leadership. Two major diplomatic tests loom in the coming fortnight. The NATO summit on July 7 requires Britain to present its Defence Investment Plan — and Starmer, as caretaker prime minister, is likely to attend in that capacity. The EU reset summit on July 22 in Brussels — a pivotal moment to reframe the UK-EU relationship a decade after Brexit — could, if the transition proceeds smoothly, serve as Burnham's debut on the international stage.

Starmer's departure marks another setback in Britain's long struggle to restore political stability after Brexit. If Burnham does inherit this difficult brief, what awaits him is not merely a party with depressed poll numbers — but a country that has run out of patience with its politicians. （Related： Harvard Dethroned. Asian Universities Redraw the Research Map ｜ Latest ）

​Original Article in Chinese​