Britain is once again set to change prime ministers. With Prime Minister Keir Starmer announcing his resignation, Britain will have had seven prime ministers in about 10 years since the 2016 Brexit (the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union) referendum.
What is more unusual is that David Cameron, Boris Johnson and Starmer all seemed to consolidate their hold on power after landslide general election wins, yet stepped down as prime minister in less than three years. The Financial Times (FT) said, "Such a frequency of prime ministerial turnover is hard to find precedent for since the 1830s, when mass democracy took off."
FT cited five factors behind Britain's political upheaval: the aftereffects of Brexit, a string of leaders' missteps, a prolonged economic slump, a culture of rebellions within parties, and political change in the social media (SNS) era.
1) The aftershock of Brexit
Starmer's resignation announcement came a day before the 10th anniversary of the Brexit referendum. FT analyzed that Brexit was not just a shift in foreign policy but an event that shook the very landscape of British politics. In the years after the referendum, British politics was consumed with resetting relations with the European Union (EU), while structural problems such as declining productivity and regional disparities went largely unaddressed.
Jeremy Hunt, a former Conservative chancellor, told FT, "Brexit not only brought down Cameron and Theresa May politically but also reshaped the traditional base of the Labor Party and the Conservatives."
In fact, working-class voters in the North and Midlands peeled away from the Labor Party, while middle-class voters in the South grew resentful of the Conservatives' Brexit line. Populist political forces such as Nigel Farage exploited that gap. FT assessed that, after Brexit, British politics moved away from the traditional left-right contest and was reconfigured around a new conflict over "whether to improve the current system or to overturn it completely."
2) A string of prime ministerial missteps
Some note that Britain's political turmoil cannot be explained by Brexit alone. Cameron took a political gamble on the Brexit referendum and lost, and Theresa May called an unnecessary snap election and forfeited authority. Boris Johnson faced pressure to resign over controversies such as parties at No. 10 during the COVID-19 lockdown, and Liz Truss pushed tax cut policies too aggressively, rattling financial markets. Successors Rishi Sunak and Starmer likewise were seen as failing to present a convincing sense of national direction.
Luke Tryl, head of pollster More in Common, told FT, "It's not that Britain has become ungovernable, but that prime ministers have repeatedly made major mistakes that in the past would have brought down a government."
FT reported that, in Starmer's case, weaknesses cited included denying the possibility of tax increases too strenuously during the 2024 general election, a lack of ability to communicate with the public, and a failure to show decisiveness on key issues such as expanding defense spending.
3) An economic stagnation nearing 20 years
The most fundamental cause is the economy. Since the 2008 global financial crisis, Britain has not fully escaped a growth slowdown. Given the heavy weight of the financial industry in the British economy, the shock was relatively large. Paul Johnson, former head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), said, "People feel their living standards have not improved for nearly 20 years, and as a result there is bound to be discontent regardless of who is in power." In reality, Britain has faced high inflation and a cost-of-living crisis in recent years. The welfare burden from an aging population is also growing.
The nation's fiscal position is also tough. According to FT, since 2010 the ratio of national debt to gross domestic product (GDP) has risen sharply, and the burden of interest expenses has surged. Taxes have climbed to record highs, but a significant portion is being used to service debt interest. FT diagnosed, "Unless the quality of life felt by the public improves, it will be hard for any prime minister to secure stable support."
4) Ruling party lawmakers who shake prime ministers
Most recent British prime ministers have faced greater difficulties from their own party's lawmakers than from the opposition. This became more pronounced during the Brexit era. During the Brexit negotiations, lawmakers grew accustomed to building policy alliances independent of party leadership. Hardline pro-Brexit lawmakers pressured multiple prime ministers and expanded their influence, setting a kind of precedent for others.
Hannah White, head of the Institute for Government (IFG), told FT, "Once an MP rebels against the leadership, they are more likely to revolt again," adding, "Now there is a perception that even a prime minister elected in a landslide can be replaced at any time." She added, "Prime ministers are still doing politics the old way, but MPs are already moving in a new way."
5) A political environment reshaped by social media
As the final factor, FT cited the political environment reshaped by social media (SNS). Because of SNS, politicians' shelf life has shortened. In the past, voters would support a party even if they agreed with only part of its platform, but now they tend to consume only political content tailored to their tastes and values through algorithms.
Luke Tryl called this "the Netflix-isation of politics." Just as people pick and choose only the content they want to watch, politics is consumed in a personalized way. FT assessed that, in this process, politics has tended to become more personality-driven than policy-driven. However, it noted that leaders who come to power on the strength of popularity are inevitably more vulnerable to downward pressure on approval ratings over time.
Indeed, the politicians mentioned as Starmer's potential successors are also being judged more on personal image and popular appeal than on policy. FT analyzed that, in the social media era, a prime minister's personal popularity becomes a political asset but can also be the biggest weakness.