Changing Prime Ministers mid-term and the constitution
How gaining or losing a Prime Minister between general elections in the norm and not the exception
There is perhaps a ‘classic’ view - which like many ‘classic’ views is not really true - that a Prime Minister comes in with a general election and then goes out at a General Election.
Like Disraeli and Gladstone did in Victorian days, or Attlee did between 1945 and 1951.
But since 1974 that has not happened.
Every Prime Minister of the United Kingdom since 1974 has either taken office between general elections or lost office between general elections - and recently even both.
Some would say that 1974 is not a sound starting point, as Heath sought to stay on and do a deal after the February election, and we would have to go back to 1970.
*
Those who came in between general elections since 1974: Callaghan, Major, Brown, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak.
Those who left office between general elections since 1974: Wilson, Thatcher, Blair, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss.
Those who did both: May, Johnson, Truss - though at least May and Johnson fought general elections during their term as Prime Minister.
*
Compare and contrast that with parties losing office between elections: that rarely happens, even if we go back a long time.
In 1905 the Conservative and Liberal Unionist coalition lost office to the Liberals, months before a general election. Some of the national and wartime coalitions mid-century shifted between general elections. But straight party swaps are few.
More recently even the loss of an overall majority - in the late 1970s or the early 1990s - merely meant the minority administration staggered on.
*
And so we have two cycles: the party cycle and the Prime Minister cycle.
The party cycle generally accords with general elections. Invariably the party in government who lose at a general election is the party which won the one before.
The Prime Minister cycle, however, only incidentally accords with general elections. Since 1974 general elections account for only a portion of the arrivals and departures from office.
*
As we seem to be about to change (yet) another Prime Minister between general elections, it is useful to remind ourselves that we (still) have very much a parliamentary rather than presidential system of government.
Even those most presidential of Prime Ministers - Thatcher and Blair - left office mid-term.
Whilst they have office some Prime Ministers can be hubristic - think Johnson or Truss - but they quickly meet with Nemesis.
The body politic regurgitated and spat them out.
*
And with Starmer, the surprise would be if he actually did lose office with a general election. If so, he would be the first Labour Prime Minister since Wilson between 1964 and 1970 to win and lose office at general elections.
But it always seems to take us by surprise when a Prime Minister loses office between general elections, as if some norm has been subverted.
The true subversion would be if a Prime Minister who won a general election was able to continue to defeat at a general election.

Given that a prime minister needs the confidence of house, it seems to me that only MPs should choose the next PM; not activists. Anything else is self indulgent. Labour and the Conservatives should change their arrangements
Thank you for this very helpful post which ensures we have the historical perspective to evaluate today's events. It was so invaluable that I read it twice.