‘How To End The Prime Ministerial Merry-Go-Round’

In the ten years since the EU Referendum, the United Kingdom has gone through six prime ministers. To lose one could be put down to misfortune.

Even a couple could be considered careless, but six seems like there is something rotten in the state of Britain.

Something needs to change: The country, businesses and the public need and deserve a greater level of stability.

There are clear issues around governance in this country that need to be addressed. Whether or not our systems still work, radical reform is needed.

We also cannot continue to chop and change prime ministers, each arriving with a new policy platform that takes time to bed in, before the cycle begins yet again.

It is time political parties placed in their constitution a requirement that when in office, any removal of a leader for anything other than health grounds comes with a promised general election within six months of the leader’s replacement.

Indeed, this may even help the party that goes first convince the electorate they are serious about governing.

We are just two years on from Keir Starmer’s Labour party securing a 174 seat majority, the third best election performance in its long history.

And yet, he is out in under two years from that victory. The Conservative Party had seen a procession of leaders during its time in power.

As a result, the electorate routed them to one of their biggest defeats. Yet lessons appear not to have been learned.

That said, there were perhaps clearer reasons for the Tory leaders’ departures than there are with Starmer.

David Cameron lost a once-in-a-generation referendum that he himself had orchestrated and, perhaps understandably, felt that he could not be the person to deliver Brexit after campaigning so hard for a Remain vote in the EU referendum.

Theresa May failed to get her own Brexit deal through parliament, despite multiple attempts, and therefore her position became untenable as she could not command a majority of even her own MPs.

Boris Johnson departed after months of scandal around Partygate, resulting in the collapse of his own government.

Liz Truss did for herself with her catastrophic mini-budget and Rishi Sunak was left to pick up the pieces, resulting in his inevitable defeat at the 2024 general election.

Starmer’s departure is altogether different. There is not a single catastrophic policy defeat or scandal that led to his resignation.

There was the death of a thousand cuts around the appointment of Peter Mandelson, but no silver bullet has yet emerged.

Indeed, it was a set of poor local election results that brought on ministerial resignations rather than scandal.

While many of the outgoing PM’s policies have damaged our economy, such as the employer national insurance rise and his failure to deliver benefits cuts, meant he was to be hamstrung in delivering any meaningful growth, none delivered a single knockout blow.

No, in the end Labour MPs decided he was just a bit shit.

Is this a serious way to run a country? Another PM, another chancellor, another set of policies.

Businesses that make investment decisions over five year periods or longer watch with bemusement, having to reshape plans and spend the time they should be focusing on providing jobs, paying tax and delivering investment, instead getting to know a new government.

In my role as a corporate communications professional, I speak to business leaders who simply want stability, a platform on which to plan, and get on with making a success out of their business.

Not the kind of generic call we heard from Starmer in 2024, or that we are now hearing from Andy Burnham. It’s not only businesses that are fed up, but the public too. As Brenda famously said in 2017,”’not another one!”

Well, that was nine years ago, and since then, we have had four prime ministers.

That’s why I am calling on all parties to place in their constitution a clause committing them, and their MPs, to a general election, should they change their leader while in government.

This election should be called within six months of a change of leader.

Some will say that it should be up to MPs.

What if they keep a bad prime minister just to avoid an election? Well, they can’t avoid an election for more than five years, and can that really be worse than rotating PMs that put the country and the economy on pause for the various leadership contests?

Is that really worse than constant political chaos?

It would perhaps even sharpen the minds of those MPs when electing a leader. There should of course be an allowance for ill health, but that is an altogether different scenario and one that can be allowed for.

If Britain and its flagging economy are to find stability and give the government a platform to deliver its mandate, we need change. Ending the endless psychodramas of internal party politics is surely the place to start.

Listen to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.