12th May 2026
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.
*
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.
More on the comments policy is here.
Good piece, tiny quibble. Wilson did not lose office in 1976, in the sense of being challenged internally or losing at GE. His resignation was voluntary and indeed quite surprising to many of his cabinet colleagues, if not close confidants like Bernard Donoghue. But your point that to change a PM within a Parliamentary term is quite common is strong
Not a “quibble” – tiny or otherwise. I know full well the circumstances of Wilson’s departure in 1976. And I chose my wording with that knowledge.
I think that Callaghan remained Prime Minister after he lost his vote of confidence> He actually left office when Thatcher took over after he lost/she won the 1979 general election.
But your point is a striking one nonetheless.
Tristan
Callaghan took office in 1976, without a general election. Don’t be so quick to “correct” errors, else you may end up yourself looking daft.
Gladstone was the first Prime Minister to come into office after an election but before the Queen’s speech. Disraeli resigned on 1 December 1868 (having become PM on the resignation of Derby in mid Parliament). Previously Prime Ministers did not resign until defeated in the Commons on the Loyal Address. The rationale for this was that the Second Reform Act established a far more broadly based electorate than the 1832 Act and that the will of the people should be respected.
In the eighteenth century, no government actually lost a general election – the constitution was oligarchic rather than democratic.
Three twentieth century Prime Ministers were defeated on motions in the Commons. Only one – Baldwin in early 1924 following the 1923 election – was defeated on the Loyal Address and he had rightly decided that since the Conservatives were the largest party in the Commons it was important that the Commons decided who should form a minority government. Ramsay Macdonald was defeated in 1924 and James Callaghan in 1979, and in both cases advised the Monarch to dissolve Parliament.
Both Ted Heath in February 1974 and Gordon Brown in 2010 unsuccessfully explored the possibility of bringing together a majority before the Queen’s speech; Theresa May (who like Ramsay Macdonald in 1929) led the largest party in the Commons in 2017 mustered a majority for the Loyal Address.
Thatcher, Jonson and Truss all stepped down when it became clear that they no longer enjoyed the confidence of ministerial colleagues. Whether the Parliamentary Party would have backed them in a confidence vote was not tested. In May 1940, the day following the substantial loss of support on an adjournment motion on the second day of the Norway debate, the chief whip told Chamberlain that if he tried to stay on he would loose a confidence motion.
Both Bonar Law in 1922 and Alec Home in 1963 initially only agreed to explore whether they could form a government. Bonar Law insisted that the Conservative Party meet and elect him its leader. Alec Home obtained the agreement of Butler and Maudling to serve in his cabinet and all the others except Macleod and Powell fell in line.
Perhaps – despite Labour’s current huge majority – the King will have to deal with the situation faced by his great grandfather in 1931 – a government falling to bits in circumstances in which delay for an election would do great financial damage. In 1931 Macdonald wanted to resign but the King summoned Macdonald, Neville Chamberlain (Baldwin was away on holiday) and Herbert Samuel (Lloyd George was recuperating) and told them bluntly “Stop buggering my people about”. Chamberlain who was one of the most successful chancellors in British history and shared the King’s apprehension about the financial damage an election would cause agreed to the formation of a national government against the absent Baldwin’s wishes.
Very interesting observation, which had not occurred to me in those terms. So thank you.
The practical point, more important than details about the precise circumstances under which each PM came into and left office is that there would be absolutely nothing novel, let alone unconstitutional, about Sir Keir leaving office some time after having won an election.
Thanks also to Joe Egerton, above, for his clear and erudite exposition of the facts behind your contention.
This is one of the best history lessons I have ever had: informative, interesting-and entertaining. All who contributed should be permanent guests on the Newsnight sofa. Thanks for the original analysis and to the other contributors.
“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.”
But that doesn’t necessarily require the next Prime Minister to be a Cabinet member or a current Member of Parliament. As was recently demonstrated in Canada. And there are much better preparations for being a Minister than being an MP: local government is often mentioned in that context. And being in the Cabinet is positively complicating when horses are changed in midstream.
Would opening this up require much constitutional change or have many disadvantages in practice?
(Any relevance to current possibilities is of course completely coincidental.)
I think at the very least it would require an Act of Parliament expressly allowing the non-MP PM (or any other Cabinet minister) to participate in the proceedings of the Commons on the equal footing with MPs for all the purpose other than voting. Lord Cameron not being physically in the chamber for questioning as the Foreign Secretary was already largely decried, it would be unseemly for a PM to send a deputy. In my country (Poland), it’s kinda how it works, PM (and any other minister) can but does not have to be an MP, but he must participate in the Sejm (lower and main chamber) proceedings, can speak out of turn just by the virtue of his office, and he can introduce bills as a government rather than as a member, but he just doesn’t vote if he’s not actually elected to the chamber. But that’s already a huge shift from a purely parliamentary system. It would be more in-line with the UK tradition for such a non-MP politician to just ask his supporter MP from a safe seat to step down so he can take his place.
Different question, but related (and perhaps more political) – what mandate for genuine change does a PM who comes in between elections have, and how much is their room for manoeuvre tied to their party’s manifesto from the most recent GE? Major change always produces losers as well as winners. My fear for HMG is that the bland Manifesto and the ‘Ming Vase’ strategy for 2024 means that any new PM who tries a substantially different tack and faces opposition is substantially constrained and cannot say that they ‘earned’ the right to push changes through. If so, they may end up floundering in the same position as Starmer.
It’s interesting how it contrasts with Germany where one Chancellor coming and another going without an election didn’t happen since 1982 (and it actually included a party shift in the government). There’s nothing in the system itself precluding it happening as evidenced by it actually happening in the past, but it usually just doesn’t. From the system point of view, the Chancellor seems to have even less tools to keep himself in power, having to deal coalition governments due to their mixed majoritarian-proportional elections rather than UK’s pure FPTP and lacking the ability to unilaterally call elections as a UK PM can (except for the 2011-2022 period under the FTPA) as a disciplining tool vs. his own party. Sometimes political culture matters more than what’s in the law.
It was not Keynes, Ghandi, Mark Twain or even Voltaire who said, “When the facts change I change my opinion. And you, Sir….?” We should not be deterred by the fact that even that is a garbled version of the original from applying a modified version to the present and future political turmoil afflicting the U.K. How about this: “The totally and catastrophically unforeseeable* economic, diplomatic and military crisis in which the entire globe languishes has rendered obsolete the manifestos of all who paricipated in the last general election in these tiny islands. This government is obliged to govern accordingly.”?
(*It is a perk of government to be judicious with the truth.)