When Andy Burnham enters Downing Street, he will be the fifth prime minister since Brexit who “took over” rather than won an election. This is now the most common route to power. Since 2010 only two out of the last seven prime ministers were voted into power by the public. Swapping leaders outside of elections is rapidly becoming a British habit.
Prime ministers being removed and replaced midterm is not as unusual as it seems. Some of our most famous leaders – Winston Churchill, Lloyd George – were takeovers. The last prime minster to be voted into power by one General Election then removed by another was Edward Heath back in 1974. But even though it’s a common phenomenon to become PM by takeover, it’s usually a poisoned chalice.
The challenges of takeover Prime Ministers
Leaders need time to get things done, and those towards the top of the league tables of PMs are often those who got plenty of time in power. But taking over usually means very little time in power. In 2016 my research found, even before the Brexit PM churn, the time that takeover PMs get in office tends to be briefer than election winner PMs. 20th century takeovers got just 3.6 years in office compared with an average of 6.6 years for those who got there by election. What I concluded then was that “on average they have less time in power, less chance of winning elections and are generally rated as worse performing“. The experience of May, Johnson and Truss has reinforced this brevity effect (though Truss’ 49 days severely brings down any average).
As well as time, takeover Prime Ministers, by their nature, face particular problems. First, their predecessor stepped down for a reason, so they inherit deep problems or scandals-and sometimes both. May and Johnson inherited the challenge of arriving at a Brexit deal, while Sunak took over Truss’ economic fallout. Fresh leaders are often severely constrained by what their predecessors did.
Second, takeovers are gifted unhappy and divided parties. Parties that remove leaders are unhappy in different ways, but all are hard to manage and control. Of the four Brexit takeovers, two were removed by formal party votes, while Truss was pushed under threat of one. Any takeover usually has limited credit and capital with already grumpy backbenchers.
Third, leaders often inherit unpopularity. Getting to office amid crisis and division is not a recipe for harmony or enthusiasm. Neither Gordon Brown, Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak or Liz Truss got very much of a “bounce’ or honeymoon“, and all started their time in office with net negative ratings. Interestingly, John Major and Theresa May were the two who did begin with positive ratings – but it didn’t last for them either.
Liz Truss is the worst case scenario takeover, encapsulating everything that can go wrong. Truss came to power in 2022 after Johnson and faced the aftermath of scandal and a growing cost of living crisis. She came to power as the leader with the lowest level of support from her own MPs in modern times, with only a third of them voting and got neither a polling bounce nor a honeymoon. That she decided, in such a situation, to go for broke with a radical economic reform is an extraordinary decision.
So, takeover PMs lack time, freedom and power. Could Andy Burnham break the cycle of turmoil?
The case of Andy Burnham
We know Burnham is hugely ambitious and, as Jen Williams points out, is positioning himself as a Northern “outsider” to try to be a force for change. How coherent or real Burnham-ism or Manchester-ism are can be debated. How much of Manchester’s transformation is down to Burnham remains open to debate. Some are worried that Burnham can be light on detail, and that he backs down under pressure, as when , unlike Sadiq Khan, he chose popularity over clean air.
His Manchester speech in June 2026 set out a bold, 10-year vision of transferring power, and a (possibly) radical shake-up of the UK. It promised a series of things that could take time, from devolution to “place based” regeneration and building more council houses.
One advantage Burnham appears to have is his ability to articulate a clear political story. If takeover prime ministers succeed by convincing voters they represent change rather than continuity, Burnham seems well aware of that challenge.
The experience of takeovers tells us that, despite the 10-year promise, Burnham will probably have a small window and small polling bounce to build an appeal around. He will certainly come to power facing crises, domestically with the cost of living and climate change, and abroad with Trump and war in Iran and Ukraine. However, unlike the Brexit takeovers, he may inherit a slightly happier party, or one at least predisposed to support him.
But Prime Minister Burnham will need to deliver some policy quickly, to give the public what he called “breathing space“. What he does will, ideally, have to somehow please some rather different factions and deliver a poll lead or bump.
Reasons for optimism
Burnham is currently, by UK standards, quite a popular politician. His appeal goes beyond Labour voters, extending to the Lib Dems and Greens. The question is whether this can be sustained and used to “reunite the now fragmented coalition that won Labour the 2024 election”. While high, his ratings have become, it seems, more negative since May.
Burnham’s decade long time scale here implies not one Labour victory in 2029 but – if we do the maths right – two. The media are already beginning to talk about an early election and labelling it Burnham’s dilemma. In fact, this is the one act that can save a takeover, winning an election soon after taking office. Although May lost her majority in 2017, John Major in 1992 and Boris Johnson in 2019 went on to win their own mandates at General Elections. Further back, Harold Macmillan was able to move past Suez and secure a healthy (and largely successful) time in power until 1963. Together they prove winning can be done, though Burnham’s electorate is far more volatile and fragmented than previous takeovers, and the outcome of 2029 is very unclear.
The lessons of Major, Johnson and Macmillan offer some more pointers for victory. A takeover needs to create and offer a clear sense of change and difference, whether ditching unpopular policy (poll tax) or doing something others could not (“Getting Brexit Done”). Most of all, a leader needs a heap of good luck, and a poor opponent. A fair economic wind could also help end the curse. The latter doesn’t seem to be on the cards, so Burnham’s fate will be decided by the extent to which he can convince the electorate that he represents genuine change – so much so that they need not look to Nigel Farage and Reform UK for it.
This article was originally published on LSE Blogs, is reproduced with minor adaptations, under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY 4.0). Read the original here.
More from East Anglia Bylines
Friends of Bylines Network
There has never been a greater need for grassroots journalism that investigates the stories that really matter, holds power to account and champions the voices of everyday citizens. We are proudly powered by volunteers but what we do isn’t free.
STAND WITH US for independent, citizen-led journalism that makes democracy stronger, and you will even get some exclusive benefits.
