May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak, and now perhaps Starmer: each prime minister was brought low for a reason. But what if the deeper problem is the office itself? The period since 2016 has seen an unprecedented churn at the top, with six – and soon likely seven – prime ministers, eight chancellors, and nine foreign secretaries. This instability, according to historian Anthony Seldon, author of The Impossible Office?, is unique in British history, despite similar periods in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Gus O'Donnell, former cabinet secretary, recalled advising David Cameron before the 2010 election to keep ministers in the same job for as long as possible to allow them to master their briefs. Yet the reality has been a game of musical chairs, with, for example, nine pension ministers over five years. This turnover undermines long-term policy, as each new prime minister reshuffles the cabinet, bringing in inexperienced ministers and advisers new to the centre of power.
Cath Haddon of the Institute for Government notes that while ineffective prime ministers must eventually go, the current pace denies leaders the time needed to learn, govern, and see projects through. As the conversion rate from prime ministers under pressure to those out the door increases, the value of stability becomes underpriced. The demand from all sides for faster change only exacerbates the problem, as big speeches do not alter much without credible blueprints and sustained effort.
The evasions embodied in Labour's one-word manifesto title, Change, have unravelled, but lessons remain unlearned. The frenzy of leadership changes distracts from solid action, leaving the country facing big strategic decisions that are ducked or postponed. Until the office itself is reformed, Britain may continue to lose prime ministers at a rate that makes governance nearly impossible.
