Cabinet, in unusual departure on procedures, wants Sunak hater Starmer gone!
By Joe Fernandez
Commentary And Analysis . . . The Economist excerpt by email, the starting point, was about the end for British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. The British constitution awaits the historian and the jurist shedding light on it. (See Guardian link for update).
(https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2026/jun/22/keir-starmer-resignation-timeable-andy-burnham-labour-leadership-prime-minister-latest-news-updates? )
The party rules, judicial precedents govern the transfer of power.
The Economist reports political drama as if it was legal proceeding.
The prime minister in the United Kingdom was removed by the loss of confidence in the Commons, by internal party process, or by voluntary resignation.
Any Cabinet revolt was political act that may force the third outcome but isn’t constitutional mechanism. The unusual departure from procedures, noted in the subheadline, was warning on constitutional irregularity.
“Sunak hater” and the claim on allegedly “hounding predecessor out of office were under the Defamation Act 2013.
Starmer’s aggressive political style, deployed against Rishi Sunak, was against him. The cause and effect, set in motion, operates without judges and without juries. Starmer’s predicament wasn’t hidden.
The Economist excerpt on 22 June 2026 was about Prime Minister Starmer on the verge of resignation, that Cabinet was pressing him in an unusual departure from constitutional and party norms, and that Andy Burnham was poised as the successor.
Starmer, when Leader of the Opposition, again “hounded Rishi Sunak out of office”, a political fact that now sees the changing of the guards.
Andy Burnham, freshly elected for Parliament, was already anointed as the “clear favourite” for the premiership. The narrative was on beleaguered leader, abandoned by ministers, being replaced.
There’s deeper story.
Starmer seized power from allegedly failing administration, as prosecutor‑turned‑politician, who dismantled a prime minister with methodical precision.
Sunak ceased as Prime Minister when the party lost the 2024 general election after the extra‑legal “hounding.”
That electoral mechanism was the constitutional process after personal vendetta.
Now, the same machinery of political destruction has turned inward. Starmer’s Cabinet, in unusual departure from collective responsibility, orchestrated removal.
The moment of destiny emerged without court, constitution, complex architecture of conventions, party rules, defamation law, and the unwritten norms that govern the transfer of power in the United Kingdom.
The reader senses the constitutional text, convention, and procedural logic. The Economist excerpt reports political sentiment as if it was legal process. The removal of a prime minister was not matter of cabal but of constitutional machinery.
Starmer’s Cabinet, in an inversion of the usual order and on the eve of dramatic week in British politics, reportedly told him that he would be forced out unless he sets timetable for exit. — TJT
Longtime Borneo watcher Joe Fernandez has been writing for many years on both sides of the Southeast Asia Sea. He should not be mistaken for a namesake formerly with the Daily Express in Kota Kinabalu. JF keeps a Blog under FernzTheGreat on the nature of human relationships.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Jesselton Times.
ISSUES
Whether the reported pressure from the Cabinet for Prime Minister Starmer’s resignation constitutes lawful and constitutionally proper method of removing the prime minister;
Whether it represents unusual and potentially destabilising departure from the conventions of collective responsibility and the established mechanisms for leadership change within the Labour Party and the British constitution; and
Whether the imputation that Starmer “Sunak hater” and that he “hounded” his predecessor out of office raises any defamatory or evidential concerns under the Defamation Act 2013 and the law of evidence.
RULE 1
Under the uncodified British constitution, the Prime Minister was appointed by the Monarch and holds office for so long as he or she commands the confidence of the House of Commons. There’s no statute prescribing the procedure for removing the prime minister. The mechanism was political.
A prime minister may resign voluntarily (as Margaret Thatcher did in 1990, and as Boris Johnson did in 2022), be forced on resignation by the loss of vote of confidence, or be removed by party through internal mechanisms.
The Cabinet possesses no formal power on dismiss the prime minister. Its members are appointed by the Prime Minister and serve at his or her pleasure. A Cabinet revolt that forces resignation was political act.
RULE 2
The doctrine of collective cabinet responsibility requires that all ministers publicly support government policy or resign.
It does not grant ministers the right on collectively dismissing the prime minister.
A Cabinet that turns against its own head was in constitutional terms an anomaly.
It represents breakdown of the mutual obligations that underpin cabinet government.
Under the Ministerial Code, ministers support the Prime Minister; leaking, undermining, or conspiring on ousting the PM breaches the Code and invites dismissal by the PM, not the reverse.
The unusual nature of the reported pressure was precisely this: the Cabinet acting as if it was parliamentary party, usurping function of the electorate, the House of Commons, or the internal party membership.
RULE 3
Under the Labour Party’s Rule Book, leadership contest was triggered by either vote of no confidence at the annual conference, challenge by MPs meeting the threshold (currently 20 per cent of Labour MPs), or the leader’s resignation.
The party’s National Executive Committee (NEC) oversees the process.
The Cabinet, as body, has no standing on removing the leader. It’s not electoral college.
The reported pressure from Cabinet ministers was therefore procedurally irregular within the party’s governance framework, inviting a potential challenge by party members under principles of natural justice.
RULE 4
The assertion that Starmer was “Sunak hater” was imputation of personal animus.
Under section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013, statement isn’t defamatory unless the publication has caused or likely causes serious harm for the reputation of the claimant.
The defence of honest opinion under section 3 requires that the statement be matter of opinion and that the opinion was based on facts that existed at the time.
“Sunak hater” was statement of motive, and if it cannot be supported by evidence — such as public statements or actions demonstrating hatred — it risks being defamatory if it causes serious harm.
The burden of proof lies on the publisher on showing that it’s honest opinion based on facts.
There’s further claim that Starmer “hounded Rishi Sunak out of office”: Sunak left office because the Conservative Party lost the 2024 general election. Electoral defeat was constitutional mechanism.
The statement thus conflates political competition with an extra‑legal process and was not supported by the constitutional record.
RULE 5
Under sections 101‑103 of the Evidence Act 1950 (by analogy), the party asserting bears the burden. The Economist excerpt relies on unattributed reports (“reportedly,” “are said to have told him”).
No Cabinet minister was named.
No source document was cited.
The claims are ipse dixit — bare, unsupported assertions.
RULE 6
Starmer, in seizing power, created particular kind of political drama.
He pursued Sunak with relentless forensic aggression, deploying the tools of parliamentary scrutiny for weakening the prime minister.
That cycle has now returned.
The very instruments he perfected — the brutal questioning, the erosion of authority, the slow dismantling of a leader’s standing — are now being wielded against Starmer by the Cabinet.
The political destruction, once set in motion, needs no court of law.
The jurist must distinguish between the constitutional fact (Sunak left by electoral defeat) and the parallel where the method of political attack has rebounded.
APPLICATION
The Economist report: Starmer will quit, the Cabinet wants him gone, Burnham remains the favourite. The report reads like a political obituary, a sentence of death passed by unnamed ministers. It is dramatic, concise, and, on the surface, plausible.
The Constitutional Impropriety of Cabinet Coup: The British constitution does not recognise the removal of the prime minister by Cabinet fiat. A prime minister who retains the confidence of the Commons was constitutionally entitled for office. The Cabinet’s threat on forcing Starmer out was political act that may precipitate constitutional crisis if Starmer does notbresign. The phrase “getting the boot” has no legal meaning; only the Monarch, acting on the loss of confidence, can dismiss a PM.
The Absence Party Due Process: The Labour Party has rules for leadership elections. The Cabinet isn’t the selectorate. The “unusual departure on procedures” was not merely matter of style; it’s potential violation of the party’s internal democracy, inviting legal challenge by party members under the rules of natural justice.
Correction of the Historical Record: The claim that Starmer “hounded” Sunak out of office was political narrative. The constitutional reality was that Sunak ceased as PM because of electoral defeat. The parallel — that Starmer’s aggressive political style was now being used against him — was distinct from the legal mechanism. The poetic can be separated from the legal.
The Defamation Risk of “Sunak Hater”: The label “Sunak hater” implies personal hatred.
If it’s bare opinion without factual foundation, it’s vulnerable for defamation claim. The article’s publisher would bear the burden of showing that the statement was honest opinion based on facts.
CONTRADICTIONS
“Starmer may quit” versus “Cabinet wants him gone”: The two propositions are not contradictory. The Cabinet’s desire for his departure may be the cause of the quitting. The question was whether the mechanism was lawful. The mechanism was political;
“Unusual departure on procedures” versus “constitutional government”: No contradiction. The Cabinet’s actions are unusual precisely because they deviate from established constitutional and party norms. The observation was accurate; the legal analysis exposes the deviation;
“Sunak hater” versus freedom of expression: No contradiction. Free speech protects the right on criticism; it does not protect false imputations on personal hatred that cause serious harm; and
“Hounded Sunak out” versus electoral defeat: Contradiction. Resolved by recognising that “hounding” was metaphor for political pressure, but the constitutional mechanism was the general election.
ACTION
No justiciable cause of action arises from the Economist report itself. However, the underlying constitutional tensions and the statements made could give rise to legal disputes:
If Starmer was removed by the Cabinet without proper party vote, and if the party’s rules were breached, a member could seek a declaration that the process was unlawful under the party’s constitution and the principles of natural justice;
The article’s assertion that Starmer was “Sunak hater” and that he “hounded” Rishi Sunak out of office could, if causing serious harm for Starmer’s reputation, ground a claim under the Defamation Act 2013. The defence of honest opinion would require a factual basis;
If the Monarch dismissed prime minister who retains the confidence of the Commons, a constitutional crisis would ensue. The courts have, in recent years, shown a willingness on adjudicating on constitutional questions where fundamental principles are engaged (Miller v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5); and
The court of law cannot adjudicate on political destruction. The Cabinet may force him out, or he may resign with dignity. The result is the same: the wheel turns, and the debt is paid.
CONFLICT
Whether the Cabinet’s pressure on Prime Minister Starmer for resignation was constitutionally proper;
Whether the Labour Party’s internal rules permit the removal of a leader by cabinet fiat;
Whether the imputation that Starmer was “Sunak hater” and that he “hounded” Rishi Sunak out of office was defamatory or protected political opinion; and
Whether the transition for new prime minister can lawfully occur without a general election or formal party leadership contest.
CHRONOLOGY
2024: General election; Labour wins; Rishi Sunak resigns as Prime Minister; Keir Starmer becomes Prime Minister.
Undated, post‑2024: Starmer’s government faces policy challenges; his leadership style attracts criticism.
Last week: Andy Burnham wins the Makerfield by‑election.
Undated, recent days: Cabinet ministers reportedly tell Starmer he must set a timetable to leave or be forced out.
Monday (upcoming): Starmer is reportedly set to announce his departure; Burnham to be sworn in as an MP.
STATUTES AND CONSTITUTION
United Kingdom — uncodified constitution; conventions on the appointment and removal of the Prime Minister.
Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866 (UK).
Labour Party Rule Book (internal governance).
Ministerial Code (UK) — collective responsibility.
Defamation Act 2013 (UK), sections 1, 3.
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 10 (freedom of expression).
Evidence Act 1950 (Act 56, Malaysia) — sections 101‑103, by analogy.
LAWS AND PRINCIPLES
Miller v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5 — Courts will adjudicate on fundamental constitutional principles where the rule of law is engaged.
Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127 — Responsible journalism defence in defamation.
Subramaniam v. Public Prosecutor [1956] 1 WLR 965 — Hearsay rule; unattributed reports are inadmissible as proof.
R v. Exall (1866) 4 F. & F. 922 — Circumstantial evidence must exclude other reasonable possibilities.
Derbyshire County Council v. Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534 — Political speech is entitled to the highest protection.
Definition – Onus Probandi: The burden of proving a fact lies on the party asserting it.
Definition – Volens et Potens: Willing and able; used in the context of electoral mandate.
Definition – Res Ipsa Loquitur: The thing speaks for itself.
AUTHORITIES AND BUNDLE
The impugned Economist excerpt (22 June 2026).
UK constitutional conventions.
Labour Party Rule Book.
Ministerial Code.
Cross & Tapper on Evidence (13th ed., 2018).
H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law, 3rd ed. (unified theory of law)
