Keir Starmer’s resignation comes as little surprise. In truth, he always appeared ill-suited to the role of Prime Minister. He entered Downing Street with no clear governing project, no driving ideology and an over reliance on advisers and political management. He often seemed more comfortable responding to events than shaping them. Yet focusing solely on Starmer risks missing the bigger picture.
When (as now seems all but inevitable) Andy Burnham walks through the door of Number 10, Britain will have had seven Prime Ministers in just ten years: Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak, Starmer and now, likely, Burnham. This is an extraordinary level of churn for a mature, Western liberal democracy.
Of course, each departure has its own story. Brexit consumed Cameron and May. Johnson was brought down by scandal. Truss detonated her own premiership. Sunak inherited a mess. Starmer failed to provide a compelling vision.
But there is also a wider trend at work. We live in an age shaped by social media algorithms that reward outrage, impatience and constant novelty. Voters increasingly demand rapid change but often become frustrated when change proves difficult. Every compromise is presented as betrayal. Every shift in emphasis becomes evidence that politicians have “sold out.” Public anger can now build in minutes rather than days, weeks, or years.
Was it always thus? Perhaps there have always been impatient electorates and unpopular leaders. Yet it feels as though something more fundamental has changed. Politics has become faster, harsher and less forgiving. The result is a country that struggles to sustain governments long enough for them to govern effectively.
That should concern all of us, regardless of what we think of Keir Starmer.
Better Transport Must Connect People and Places
On Friday, I attended the Better Transport Conference at the London South Bank University, organised by the Campaign for Better Transport as part of Better Transport Week. I did so as a representative of the Leicestershire Passenger Transport User Group.
This event brought together campaigners, policymakers, transport professionals and community representatives to discuss how transport can better connect people and places. We heard from Rail Minister Lord Peter Hendy, who reflected on the challenges and opportunities facing Britain’s transport network as the government pursues rail reform and greater integration.
What struck me most is how often transport is discussed purely in terms of infrastructure, funding or economics. Important though these things are, transport is ultimately about people. It is about whether someone can get to work, visit family, access healthcare or participate fully in community life.
There was considerable discussion about rail reform, buses, devolution and integrated transport planning. The common thread running through every conversation was the need to create transport networks that are accessible, affordable, reliable and genuinely serve local communities.
I was sorry to miss the contribution from Lib Dem Transport Spokesperson Olly Glover MP, but (perhaps rather ironically) I had to leave to catch my train back to the Midlands to be back home in time to record the latest ep of the podcast I do-host, Political Frenemies. Nevertheless, I left the event encouraged by the range of ideas on display.
For we liberals, better transport is about more than moving people from A to B. It is about expanding opportunity, reducing isolation and increasing freedom.
Remembering the human being
Now back to today’s big political story.
As Keir Starmer announced his resignation in front of No.10 Downing Street today, one of the most striking moments came when he spoke emotionally about his family, his wife and two teenage children.
Whatever our views of his premiership, it was a reminder that politicians are human beings, with lives, families, hopes, fears, and feelings, too often, politics encourages us to see public figures as caricatures rather than actual people.
Robust criticism is essential in a democracy, of course. But dehumanisation is not. In an age of social media outrage and constant political warfare, we would do well to remember that those we elect are flesh and blood, just like the rest of us.
We forget that at our peril.
* Mathew Hulbert is a former Councillor, is a regular commentator on TV and Radio, and is Co-Host of the Political Frenemies podcast.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The nearest beach to Leicestershire and Birmingham
Bonus podcast content: politics, football and the movies
Convicted fraudster was introduced as Farage's chief of staff
Simon Costain
David Wright
Matt Wardman
theakes
Peter Martin
25 Comments
“..and an increasingly ungovernable country.”
I fundamentally disagree with your analysis. You appear to be blaming the voters for the failures of those they elect to deliver on the promises they make. If politicians get elected to power by making promises they can’t or won’t keep, they fully deserve to be removed from power as quickly as possible. That is not a sign of an ‘ungovernable country’ – it is a sign of the abuse of our democracy by politicians and political parties who are willing to lie and cheat (by making promises they know they won’t deliver) to get elected.
“We live in an age shaped by social media algorithms that reward outrage, impatience and constant novelty. Voters increasingly demand rapid change but often become frustrated when change proves difficult. Every compromise is presented as betrayal. Every shift in emphasis becomes evidence that politicians have “sold out.” Public anger can now build in minutes rather than days, weeks, or years.”
Whereas it can take months or years to bring about any changes which could make a significant impact on peoples’ lives – social nedia takes no account of that issue.
Starmer failed to communicate the home truths that the country needs to be told. Over promising led to under delivery. Welfare budget needs to be cut and tax rises to be better explained. So does ramping up the defence budget. I hope Burnham will better explain it. I am impressed with Al Carns who does seem to do it well
@ Tim Rogers, “Starmer failed to communicate the home truths that the country needs to be told”.
Not the only political Leader to do that. There is a limit to how much difference a bungee jump makes to a sensible discussion about the economy, Europe and a participatory democracy.
And, sorry, Tim, but you need to be more specific on what, if any, welfare should be cut and why.
The government has achieved a lot of what it promised to do, and had been on track to achieve more policies stated in their manifesto. https://fullfact.org/government-tracker/
You are right that political conversations have become more polarised, and we as a public are a lot more impatient, perhaps due to the effect of social media. It is easier to scrutinise politicians, which although is democratic in itself, can lead to misinformation and skewed perceptions.
Sadly, Starmer brought himself down by appointing the multi-resignated and very risky Mandelson – which tied up with all the very negative stuff to do with the former Duke of York. He should have been wiser and known better. An own goal.
Nonconformistradical 22nd Jun ’26 – 6:56pm.”Whereas it can take months or years to bring about any changes which could make a significant impact on peoples’ lives – social nedia takes no account of that issue…
Exactly.. And I agree that, as a nation, we HAVE become ‘increasingly ungovernable’..
In today’s UK, for a major section of the population, the ‘ethnicity’ of the criminal is far more important than the crime.. Using social media, violent protests, egged on by irresponsible politicians (Farage, et al) and thugs (Yaxley-Lennon et al) can take over whole areas of cities within hours..
In addition, the current US administration and $multibillionaires are actively undermining the rule of law in Britain..
And this, in a nutshell, makes the case for regulating the design of social media — at the very least, compelling social media companies to open up their algorithms and allow users to shape their own experiences. But the worldwide trend seems to be to regulate all social media as though it were Facebook and X (e.g. by social media bans) which in the long run will entrench the existing players and shut out potential competitors. The best hope is probably that the current big players drown in their self-created slop.
@Expats
“In today’s UK, for a major section of the population, the ‘ethnicity’ of the criminal is far more important than the crime.. Using social media, violent protests, egged on by irresponsible politicians (Farage, et al) and thugs (Yaxley-Lennon et al) can take over whole areas of cities within hours..”
Indeed. But I notice police reports of crimes increasingly likely to include the ethnicity of an arrested person which helps to show that white Brits commit crimes as well as foreigners.
@ David,
“Starmer brought himself down by appointing the multi-resignated and very risky Mandelson”
Mandelson may well claim that he appointed Starmer to be Labour leader with Morgan McSweeney as his right hand man. ‘The Fraud’, by Paul Holden, is well worth a read to understand what went out of the public eye in the run up to the 2019 election. So the major blunder of appointing Mandelson was a case of cronyism and repaying past favours. Starmer will likely have felt that he couldn’t risk having a disgruntled Mandelson on the loose. He knew too much.
The plan of the so-called Labour Together group, prior to the 2019 election, was to effectively split the Labour Party by expelling Jeremy Corbyn with the expectation that he would take the left of the party with him. They didn’t expect to win and there is evidence that their tactics beforehand were designed to ensure they didn’t.
Mandelson famously said it would be a good thing for Labour to shed its left wing, they lost over 200,000 members, because they wouldn’t have anywhere else to go.
This was a major miscalculation. Most did find somewhere else. They ended up in the Greens. So for the last two years Labour have been attacked on two fronts. They’ve never really coped with this. Starmer vacillated between swinging right to stave off Reform and left to stave off the Greens. The U turns on the two child cap etc, proved disastrous in the end.
Is The UK Ungovernable ?
No, its hysterical bollox & plays into the hands of The Far-Right.
@ Peter Martin. A further thought. Mandelson may have been appointed because his knowledge of Trump’s varied activities gave him a special hold over said President. This clearly backfired because Trump when cornered gets aggressive……. Hence, Starmer is no Churchill comment.
@ David,
You’re suggesting that Trump wanted rid of rid of Mandelson so made sure that the right Epstein related documents were disclosed? An interesting thought!
@ Tim,
“Starmer failed to communicate the home truths that the country needs to be told”
I think we’d all agree with this.
We might disgree about what these “home truths” are though. We all know what they are from a right wing perspective. Welfare bills have to be cut, local councils continually have to manage with less and less funding, even that the NHS is becoming “unaffordable” etc etc.
From a more left perspective it is that the levels of inequality, in both wealth and incomes, have indreased substantially in recent decades. Good jobs in manufacturing have been lost to be replaced by minimum wage jobs in other sectors. I would say this is caused by the application of neoliberal economics which the right often claim to be a made-up term. This is the primary reason for the discontent that has led us to where we are now. This in turn led to an increased support for Brexit and the rise of the far right.
David Raw 23rd Jun ’26 – 10:13am…
David, If memory serves Trump’s, “No Churchill…” remark was because of Starmer’s refusal to join Trump’s Iran war…
BTW.. Trump has continuously declared “The British people are angry with Starmer for not joining the war”.. Alternative realities?
Have just come from the latest post discussing Welsh Lib Dems struggles to a post regarding better transport. Does this mean support for retrospective funding for HS2 not being devolved as well as fairer funding for infrastructure project going forward in Wales?
Not quite sure what would constitute “ungovernable” but the idea (@Paul Barker) that this is “bollox” (like the Irish spelling, somehow makes it feel less aggressive) is amaingly complacent.
Twenty years ago Tom Bentley, then director of Demos, wrote,
“Without the mass exercise of citizenship many of our public traditions and institutions will atrophy. Without a new level of direct citizen participation the legitimacy of our political istitutions will continue to decline”.
And so it has come to pass, we have a crisis of democracy which is manifesting itself in increasing support for extremists on the left and right. Neither Andy Burnham. nor a landslide for the Liberal Democrats in 2029 for that matter, will solve the basic problem
I wasn’t sure whether I agreed with Matthew, but I damn well agree with Chris Cory.
@Chris Cory
“ we have a crisis of democracy which is manifesting itself in increasing support for extremists on the left and right”
No, it is not a crisis of democracy if they are operating within the democratic system. Similarly, it would not be a crisis of democracy if they won an election, so long as they did not plan on ending the democratic system.
@Jana. It would seem that all you require of a democracy is a vote every 5 years and that any result it throws up is fine and shows our democracy is in good shape. Consider the possibilty that democracy should involve more than just a chance to place your cross in a box every few years, and that a more dynamic democracy would create a political culture less characterised by hatred and unicorns.
@Chris Cory
“ any result it throws up is fine and shows our democracy is in good shape”
No, any result is not ‘fine’ – it may be very unpalatable – but it may still be democratic. I think you are confusing having a health democracy either having a healthy society. If hate-motivated extremists get elected, it is a reflection on society rather than on our democratic process.
“Starmer failed to communicate the home truths that the country needs to be told. Over promising led to under delivery.”
This doesn’t quite cut it. One, because there is no general agreement about what these supposed “home truths” might be, and what they might imply for policy. Two, because Starmer in many ways under-promised, warning that hardship was unavoidable and that he had no quick solutions. This was too negative. It implied that he also had no ideas and no real motivation to succeed.
The fundamental “home truth” in politics is that you can’t get owt for nowt. This becomes all the more true when, as now, Britain is skint.
Burnham’s main plus points are emotional literacy, good presentation skills, and flexibility. He has no magic wand, but he should be able to out-perform Starmer in keeping people on his side.
Sadly, he didn’t start the job two years ago, and Starmer has since used up most of our national reserves of patience. So the Right will fancy their chances of bringing Burnham down. Lib Dems should hope that they fail.
@Jana. The difference between our perspectives lies in your last sentence. “Society” and “democracy “ are not unconnected. Create a better democracy, get a better society. When our society is clearly damaged and is leading people to extreme politics, ask yourself whether a more inclusive democracy might create a more inclusive society.
“We have a crisis of democracy which is manifesting itself in increasing support for extremists”
Point wrongly put. The rise of Farage’s neofascism, and the threat to minorities of mass expulsions or worse, has not been caused by first-past-the-post. It has been caused by falling living standards, and by the failure of the three old parties to reverse our national decline. Broadly the same factors as those which led to Hitler.
What really is a “crisis of democracy” is that Farage could sweep to power, with disastrous consequences, on less than 30% of the national vote.
“We have a crisis of democracy which is manifesting itself in increasing support for extremists”
Point wrongly put, I think. The rise of Farage, and the threats to minorities of mass expulsions or worse, have not been caused by first-past-the-post. They have been caused by falling living standards and by the failure of the three old parties to reverse our national decline. Broadly the same factors as those which applied to 1930s Germany.
What really is a “crisis of democracy” is that Farage could sweep to power, with disastrous consequences, on less than 30% of the national vote.