The UK is marching towards its seventh prime minister in a decade because it remains trapped by a failed Brexit that neither citizens nor political leaders have been able to make work.
The governing Labour party, reeling from heavy losses to the Reform party, a far-right populist political party led by Nigel Farage, after the local elections of 7 May, is strongly considering replacing prime minister Keir Starmer.
Manchester mayor Andy Burnham and former health secretary Wes Streeting are preparing leadership challenges, believing they have a better chance than Starmer of stopping Reform at the next general election, expected in May 2029.
Starmer entered 10 Downing Street in Juley 2024, still less than two years ago, after a landslide Labour victory, following the public’s fatigue from the Conservative Party’s 14 years in power.
But, as of May 2026 his standing had crumbled: approval was near historic lows, with just 19 percent viewing him positively. More than 80 Labour MPs, following the local elections defeat, urged him to step down as leader of the Labour party and prime minister, fearing his unpopularity could squander Labour’s prospects and hand the keys of 10 Downing Street to Farage in 2029.
If Starmer is replaced, Britain would have its seventh prime minister since the 2016 Brexit referendum that set the country on its course out of the European Union.
The last time the UK burnt through prime ministers at a similar rate was in decade-long stretches in the 18th century (1760–1770) and the 19th (1827–1837).
This rapid turnover of leaders is not merely a quirk of contemporary politics.
Brexit has done more than cost Britain several prime ministers over the last decade: it has reshaped Britain’s political landscape.
From two parties to seven
The old Conservative–Labour duopoly that dominated since 1721 has fractured into a five-party system. In the May 2026 local elections, Reform took about 26 percent nationally, followed by the Greens (18 percent), Conservatives (17 percent), Labour (17 percent) and the Liberal Democrats (16 percent).
Changing prime ministers will not, by itself, resolve the core problem: the UK’s failure to make Brexit work.
David Cameron resigned following the referendum, while the demands of implementation overwhelmed Theresa May. Boris Johnson won an election promising to “get Brexit done” but fell amid scandal. Liz Truss’s 45‑day premiership wrecked markets and plunged the pound, while Rishi Sunak sought to steady the ship with the Windsor Framework but lacked the authority to restore confidence.
Now Starmer, who promised competence and to repair relations with the EU, finds himself buffeted by the same forces.
Brexit did not create every problem Britain faces today. It amplified many: anaemic growth, stagnant wages, strained public services, erosion of public trust, polarised politics, trade frictions, labour shortages, and a corrosive sense of a permanent political crisis.
These are not isolated problems but symptoms of a political and economic rupture Britain has yet to reconcile since leaving the EU in 2016.
Promoters of Brexit, especially Farage and Johnson, promised regained control. Instead, the UK increasingly appears less capable of shaping events at home or projecting influence abroad. Migration, was the cornerstone of Farage’s Brexit campaign, rose after Brexit, exposing how much of the debate was driven by political narrative rather than structural reality.
Starmer’s government has provided a sense of predictability to EU partners: he has cultivated close relations with France by co‑leading a “Coalition of the Willing” with French president Emmanuel Macron in support of Ukraine.
In May 2026, his government also introduced UK‑EU partnership legislation aimed at aligning more closely trade, technology, security, and citizens’ rights with the EU, potentially paving the way for the UK to join the EU single market to mitigate the high cost of living rise, which has increased by 20 percent only in the past four years.
What’s in it for Brussels? Not much
Yet the spectre of Farage and the prospect of an anti‑EU government make deeper engagement politically fraught for the EU.
Why should the EU make difficult concessions to a Britain under Labour if that could easily reverse course within a few years under a potential Reform government?
The core issue is that Britain’s political turmoil is not merely the result of weak leadership but stems from a nation ensnared in continuous uncertainty following an unresolved decision to leave the EU.
Until Britain confronts the ramifications of Brexit and the ensuing instability in both its political landscape and economy, its GDP is about four to eight percent lower, while business investment have declined by about 12 percent to 18 percent compared to what it would have been had the UK remained in the EU.
Brexit’s a ‘disaster’. Let’s do … nothing
Those now positioning to replace Starmer, notably Burnham and Streeting, have called Brexit a disaster. If they mean it, they must go beyond the cosmetic rapprochement with the EU that Starmer is already pursuing and force a candid national reckoning: should the UK rejoin the EU?
Polling increasingly suggests a majority favours rejoining the EU, with a younger generation now increasingly recognising the benefits of joining after a decade of Brexit over the half-measures proposed by Starmer or Burnham and Streeting.
But only an honest debate about Brexit’s true social and economic costs can offer a credible path out of the political turmoil of the past decade.
After a decade of economic stagnation, political turmoil and diminished international standing caused by Brexit, the UK should consider rejoining the EU because the country has simply become ungovernable.
But the UK must first confront Brexit’s consequences and forge a clear political agenda for its relations with the EU, either joining the EU single market or full EU membership and not a half-measured approach closer alignment with the EU.
Replacing prime ministers alone will only extend the cycle of instability.