In British English, there are many idioms for something or someone that is quickly forgotten.

"Here today, gone tomorrow" refers to a passing fad, "today's headlines will be tomorrow's fish and chip paper" is an attempt to console someone caught in embarrassment.

None fully reflect the trajectory of Keir Starmer's stuttering downfall. On Saturday, it will be two years since he was celebrating winning one of the biggest election victories in UK history, but his power has since drained away, at first slowly, then extremely fast. After winning Labour's second largest majority in July 2024, he is set to become the party's shortest-serving prime minister.

Starmer is, perhaps cruelly, already "yesterday's man." The governing system is gently resting, enjoying cooler weather and awaiting fresh direction as the oxygen and intrigue floods to prime-minister-in-waiting Andy Burnham and his plans to "rewire" the state.

Agree with the outgoing Manchester mayor's prospectus for the country or not, for many his capacity to tell and sell a story for the future highlights Starmer fatal political flaw.

Better vocational training, deeper devolution, place before party, good growth in every area, positive political culture. Much of Burnham's policy direction isn't wholly different from that being implemented under Starmer, but the framing, emphasis, urgency and language he uses place them in a bigger and more cohesive picture.

In fact, the implications of what Burnham has floated go further and are more daring than anything considered by the Starmer government. Whether they survive contact with reality remains to be seen.

Under Starmer, Labour's record of delivery on its promises isn't bad. It's made progress on priorities like increasing the minimum wage, improving employment rights, bringing down hospital waiting lists, controlling immigration and, slowly, growing the economy. And internationally, away from party politics – some commentators dubbed him "never here Keir" – he has been widely praised for his calm outreach.

Yet Starmer has stumbled from landslide-winner to the exit door in just two years. Look back to the start of his premiership, and there were clues that his leadership was on shaky ground from the beginning.

A majority mirage?

Starmer was never a retail politician or beloved by his party. He was regarded as decent, hardworking and serious, and accepted as a means to an end by many in Labour following 14 years of Conservative rule. In some ways his pre-election pitch resembled George H.W. Bush, a US president seen as embodying integrity and competence, but who was forever haunted by what he called "the vision thing."

Whereas Burnham embraces Manchesterism, a vision of local politics, public control of key services and public-private investment based on his experience as a mayor, the book Get In: The Inside Story of Labour Under Starmer recounts an incident in which Starmer angrily insists: "There is no such thing as Starmerism, and there never will be!"

He simply didn't see a need for "the vision thing." And YouGov polling suggests voters recognized that from the start – only 9% said they were very clear on what he stood for at the time of the 2024 election.

Communication wasn't just a problem with the public. Starmer also struggled to bring people within his own party along with him. Backbench Labour MPs and junior ministers have reportedly complained that he made little effort to reach out to them. 

After the scale of victory in 2024 he perhaps felt he earned the right to better uses of his time. Fast forward two years, and the language in Starmer's resignation speech was telling: "I did this… because of me." But party politics is a team sport, and amid big ambitions and rivalries securing support and allies is fundamental to success and authority.

The 2024 majority gave Starmer the chance to make big changes, but the headline figure was always misleading about Labour's popularity. Victory came with a vote share of only 33.7% – lower than any party forming a post–war majority government – in an election on a turnout of just 59.7% – the third lowest since 1918. Starmer's Labour secured a 174-seat majority and won twice as many seats as Jeremy Corbyn's Labour in a heavy defeat to Boris Johnson's Conservatives in 2019, but around half a million fewer votes.

Such are the vagaries of the British electoral system. But the results do indicate that Starmer's Labour was never all that popular. When things started going wrong, and as the cost of living continued to rise, his approval ratings dropped and the clearer messages of populist parties grew increasingly popular.

Labour MPs found that the response to Starmer among the public was often one of vitriol – many said that when campaigning for the local elections in May this year, in which the party won only 17% of the vote in England, the defining theme was a dislike of the prime minister. His approval ratings have been net negative 40% or worse with most pollsters for almost a year.

Challenges and U-turns

Stability, growth, change were welcome slogans in opposition, but it quickly became clear that Starmer didn't have a cohesive plan for delivering in difficult times.

And there's no doubt the UK faces challenges and compromises. High debt is a huge burden, welfare payments have ballooned, growth is much lower than before the 2008 financial crisis and concern over "reassuring the markets" is a leash prime ministers are unwilling to risk slipping.

According to the Office of National Statistics (ONS), debt payments make up almost 10% of government spending and debt is equivalent to 95% of GDP. With debt growing and borrowing costs rising, the UK pays around £50 billion a year more in interest than it did in 2021. Annual welfare payments have jumped by about £50 billion a year since 2021 too, according to the ONS.

Starmer, formerly a top civil servant as director of public prosecutions, was presented as a technocrat who could work the system. But he struggled to explain the difficulties, the need for tough calls. In the end, his focus on procedure ahead of politics hurt him domestically. His lack of guiding ideology contrasted poorly with the media savvy populists to his left and right. Calls to be bold, decisive, make use of the large majority to do big things, went unheeded.

Looking back, the dye was likely cast early in the administration. People tend to remember the mistakes not the successes, and two headline-grabbing errors came within weeks of the election.

First, the government unexpectedly announced that winter fuel payments, an allowance to help elderly people pay for heating, would end for many. It was an attempt to show that Labour would take tough decisions, but the public saw the move as cold hearted, MPs revolted, and over a damaging 12 months the policy was reversed in slow motion.

Despite the huge majority, MPs sensed weakness. Numerous other U-turns followed – Politico lists 13 reversals – and the promise of competence and stability began to look shaky.

Second, it emerged soon after the election that senior Labour officials had accepted free tickets to sports and music events, free clothes, a free pair of glasses donated to Starmer. Not the biggest scandal in the wider context, perhaps, but awkward for a prime minister who had made integrity one of his calling cards. Later the appointment of Peter Mandelson, who would become embroiled in the Epstein files, as ambassador to the US put further question marks over Starmer's judgement.

Ready for a change

The UK was ready for a change in 2024 after over a decade of Conservative rule and the chaos of Brexit and the Covid-19 pandemic, and Starmer was a very acceptable face of stability. But his lack of a clear vision, poor communication and early mistakes set the tone for a government which has delivered moderate successes, few of which are recognized by the public.

Does Starmer's troubled premiership offer any lessons for Burnham? Be decisive, be clear about priorities and straightforward about the challenges. Set the tone early and communicate with the party and public constantly.

History may judge Starmer kindly. He earned respect on the world stage and is being touted for major international roles, and key domestic metrics did improve on his watch. Perhaps if his successor makes a success of the still huge majority, Starmer will be seen as having set the foundations for what followed.

But there will be no Starmerism, and Starmer's premiership is already a fading memory.