"Terrible and chaotic": Keir Starmer left the post of Prime Minister of Great Britain

Keir Starmer has resigned as Prime Minister of Great Britain and leader of the Labour Party. His departure was the result of several months of pressure, from the scandal surrounding Peter Mandelson to the defeat of the Labor Party in local elections and the growing rebellion within his own faction. Who will now head the government of the United Kingdom and what the change of the British prime minister will mean for Russia — in the Izvestia article.

The Downing Street crash

Keir Starmer has announced his resignation as Prime Minister of Great Britain and head of the Labour Party. At the same time, he said that he would continue to hold this position until his successor was elected.

The politician has already informed about the resignation of King Charles III. The election of the new head of state will begin on July 9, and Starmer does not plan to participate in it.

It is not necessary to hold new parliamentary elections after the resignation of the prime minister. In the British system, the government is formed by the party with the majority in the House of Commons. To replace the current leader, a potential rival must gain the support of 20% of Labor MPs. That's 81 signatures now. After that, the party election procedure is started.

The day before, US President Donald Trump also announced that Starmer would resign. The politician noted that his colleague had "failed" on migration and energy issues. "I wish him good luck," the Republican wrote on his Truth Social network.

Public sentiment has long been against Starmer. According to YouGov, the majority of Britons (57%) believed that he should resign as prime minister, while only 25% of respondents wanted to keep him in office.

Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, is considered the main favorite to replace Starmer. So far, he has not directly challenged the prime minister, largely due to a formal obstacle.: To qualify for the post of head of government, he needed to return to the House of Commons of the British Parliament. This restriction was lifted after the by-election in Makerfield County. Burnham won a landslide victory, gaining 55% of the vote against 34.5% for the Reform UK candidate and received a parliamentary mandate. Now he can participate in the struggle for the prime minister's seat.

Burnham has already fought for the leadership of the Labor Party twice. In 2010, he took fourth place, behind Ed Miliband, and in 2015 he became the second after Jeremy Corbyn. Now the situation looks much more favorable for him: the party is going through a crisis, and Burnham can offer the Labor Party an image of a restart.

The British media call former Defense Minister John Healy another possible candidate. He resigned last week over disagreements with Starmer over defense spending. Formally, it was about the budget and insufficient financing of the army, but the media perceived this step as an application for an independent role within the party.

Why was Starmer written off

The first talks about a possible change of prime minister began in the winter. Then Starmer was hurt by the scandal surrounding Peter Mandelson, the former British ambassador to the United States, who was fired because of his ties to Jeffrey Epstein. Mandelson's candidacy for the diplomatic post was promoted by the prime minister himself, so the blow fell on him.

Starmer fought back then. "I am not ready to give up my mandate and responsibility to the country or plunge us into chaos, as others have done," he replied to critics.

His position was seriously undermined by the local elections. On May 7, three campaigns were held in the United Kingdom: in 136 councils of England, as well as parliamentary elections in Scotland and Wales. They ended in complete defeat for the Labour Party: in England alone, the Labour Party lost almost 1,500 council seats and lost control over dozens of bodies.

The party members blamed Starmer for this fiasco. According to polls at the time, only 18% supported the prime minister's work, and the party naturally assumed that his anti-rating pulled them down. After the announcement of the election results, 100 deputies called on the prime minister to voluntarily resign.

It seemed that Starmer's days as prime minister were numbered, but he managed to retain power. The political calendar helped him in many ways: the throne speech of King Charles III was scheduled for May 13. This is the official speech of the monarch, which announces the program of the current government for the coming year.

The event allowed the Labor leader to gain time. After the government publicly presented the program for the year, an immediate change of prime minister would demonstrate a deep split in the Labor Party, and such a blow could finally finish off its position.

What will Starmer be remembered for

One of the main complaints about Starmer's leadership is the constant U—turns and contradictory decisions. At first, he limited payments for heating to pensioners, then, under pressure, he was forced to win back. He tried to reform labor rights, including protection from unfair dismissal from the first day of work, but even here he began to lose ground. I was going to postpone the local elections, but after criticism I changed my mind again.

Such reversals have become chronic for his government and have become a constant source of ridicule in the British press.

When the internal agenda began to pour in, the prime minister began searching for an external enemy. He actively promoted the idea that Russia was a threat to the entire European security. Moreover, I have already talked about the likelihood of a direct clash between Moscow and NATO in the foreseeable future, namely until 2030.

With this rhetoric, Starmer drove himself into a corner: he had to increase military spending, but there was no money in the budget. The government's plan called for an increase in military spending to only 2.68% of GDP by 2030, while the Defense Ministry insisted on at least 3%. The conflict over funding led to high-profile resignations in the military, including the departure of Defense Minister John Healey, and further undermined the prime minister's position.

At the same time, London tried to consolidate its role as one of the main European curators of the Ukrainian direction. In 2025, the UK brought military aid to Ukraine to a record $5.7 billion. And in April 2026, the British government announced the largest drone supply program in its history to Ukraine: it was planned to transfer more than 150,000 drones during the year. In addition, under Starmer, Kiev used Storm Shadow missiles for the first time to attack Russian territory.

Energy has become a separate area. The Labor government has increased the sanctions pressure on Russian energy resources. London has also announced a hunt for tankers that the British authorities associate with the so-called "shadow fleet" and the transportation of Russian LNG. At the same time, London supported the supply of enriched uranium to Ukrainian nuclear power plants.

Britain's military activity has also intensified on the eastern flank of NATO — a partnership agreement was signed with Poland, and the Northern fleets alliance was created to "counter the Russian threat" in northwestern Europe and the Arctic. Starmer sought to show that after Brexit, London remains one of the key players in European security and is able to set the tone in anti-Russian policy. "Britain stands shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine, Romania and its NATO allies in the face of ongoing Russian aggression," he said in May.

But betting on an external threat did not save the prime minister. The voters have not received an answer to the main question: why life has not improved after the change of power.

What the experts say

Starmer fell due to accumulated distrust: within the country and within his own party, experts interviewed by Izvestia note. The promised turnaround after the Conservative era did not happen, and the Labor Party too quickly began to lose the credibility with which they came to power.

— Britain's problems have not gone away. I would even say that they are increasing from year to year. Starmer promised a lot of reforms and promised to change the situation for the better, but now it turns out that nothing has been done for the better. On the contrary, the situation has even worsened," Nikolai Topornin, director of the Center for European Integration, tells Izvestia.

According to him, the discontent was especially noticeable against the background of rising prices and the failure of the Labor Party in the local elections. Against the background of the crisis in Hormuz, fuel and housing prices have risen.

— People, of course, notice all this. And for the best, the government is not able to do anything. All this spilled out in the local elections. The Labor Party, led by Starmer, suffered a very severe defeat," the expert notes.

Until recently, he was kept in the prime minister's chair by the lack of an agreed alternative. Now this issue has essentially been resolved: Andy Burnham has become the main contender. However, changing the leader does not solve the main problem — the collapse of trust in traditional parties.

— The recent local elections have shown that the protest electorate is rapidly moving towards new forces, primarily Nigel Farage's Reform UK party. This creates pressure not only on Starmer, but also on the entire traditional two—party system," Natalia Eremina, a professor at St. Petersburg State University, points out in an interview with Izvestia.

For Russia, Starmer was an unfavorable but not unique figure, Denis Denisov, an expert at the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, also points out. His course fit into the general line of the British establishment: support for Ukraine, pressure on the Russian energy sector, the fight against the "shadow fleet" and the strengthening of Britain's role on the eastern flank of NATO.

— For Russia, he was one of a number of European politicians who tried to make a name for themselves with high-profile statements. Starmer's position on the conflict in Ukraine is also well known: it consisted of unconditional support for Kiev," the source adds.

Eremina, however, warns: even after Starmer's departure, a reversal of British policy should not be expected.

"Whoever replaces Starmer, Britain remains a NATO country and will strive to maintain an active role on the eastern flank of the alliance," she concludes.