Sir Keir Starmer's future as Prime Minister and Labour leader is under intense internal scrutiny, with party figures and commentators openly questioning his durability after a dramatic collapse in public support. The speculation continues despite the summer parliamentary recess, with MPs engaged in fervent discussions over messaging platforms about whether he should remain in post.
A Crisis of Confidence and the 'Most Unpopular' Tag
Starmer's approval ratings have plummeted to an unprecedented minus 54%, earning him the grim title of the "most unpopular PM ever"—a moniker also held, at various points, by each of his four immediate predecessors: Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Rishi Sunak. This rapid decline in popularity for a Prime Minister who has delivered a number of policy achievements has sparked profound doubt within a Labour Party that has fallen "so far, so fast."
The internal debate now centres on whether swapping leaders would offer any real gain, or simply plunge the country into further political instability, mirroring the Conservative Party's turbulent post-Brexit years which saw four prime ministers in eight years. In an era where old party loyalties are fading and new political forces emerge, history provides little clear guidance.
The Case For and Against a Change at the Top
Some voices, like Fraser Nelson writing in the Times, caution against a leadership change, warning Labour not to "hallucinate about miraculous powers of a fresh face." He argues a new premier without a public mandate would struggle to control cabinet rifts and backbench rebellions, potentially leading to a rapid dissolution and an early election.
Others, however, look to historical precedent for hope. Pollster Peter Kellner cites the example of John Major replacing Margaret Thatcher in 1990. Major's ratings soared, leading to a fourth consecutive Tory win in 1992, primarily because he was not the deeply unpopular Thatcher. Starmer's critics argue he has become a similar "albatross" for Labour, with voters expressing a visceral dislike for him on the doorstep—a reaction that puzzles some commentators given his serious and decent character.
What Would 'Change' Actually Mean?
Analysts insist that merely changing the leader for better "optics and oracy" would be a futile exercise. The fundamental requirement is a clear and united new vision. Columnist Polly Toynbee argues that "Change" must mean an explicit departure from the current, constrained manifesto, acknowledging a world transformed by Donald Trump's presidency, war in Europe, and AI-driven economic threats.
This new direction, she suggests, could involve discarding restrictive tax pledges, abandoning Brexit red lines to rebuild European ties, introducing proportional representation, and cleansing political donations. Crucially, any new leader must honestly address the government's overwhelming fiscal constraints, as outlined by the Resolution Foundation, and present a credible plan for economic growth.
The potential successors—figures like Health Secretary Wes Streeting, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, or Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham—are seen as capable, but they would need to define this new path convincingly. The risk for Labour is a repeat of the Gordon Brown era, where protracted plots and internal strife over a successor paralysed the government and dominated news coverage.
The ultimate measure of a successful leadership change would be a recovery in Labour's polling, the ability to see off challenges from parties like Reform UK, and the courage to tackle the nation's most difficult problems. Without a coherent plan and mutual agreement across factions, Labour may soon look back on the early achievements of the Starmer era and wonder why they triggered a crisis that undermined it all.
