Sir Keir Starmer has announced that he will stand down as the MP for Holborn and St Pancras, setting up a by-election for the London constituency.

In a statement to the Camden New Journal, the Prime Minister-turned-backbencher said representing the area for 11 years had been a “huge honour and privilege” and that he would now turn his attention to “international affairs”.

His decision comes after he resigned as prime minister earlier in the summer, with Andy Burnham taking over in Downing Street.

Starmer To Focus On International Affairs

Starmer said he was prepared to “pass the baton to a successor” and outlined areas he intends to prioritise outside Parliament. He said his work would include international affairs covering defence, security, trade and technology.

He added that he would continue an ongoing campaign to combat violence against women and girls, describing the issue as one he wanted to pursue further after leaving the seat. Starmer said he began that work before becoming an MP and intended to continue it in parallel with his other responsibilities.

By-Election To Be Set After Formal Resignation

A date for the by-election will not be set until Starmer formally resigns his Commons seat.

The announcement is also scheduled to land hours before Burnham makes his first statement in the House of Commons as prime minister, setting out his priorities and taking questions from MPs.

Starmer had previously indicated he would remain an MP following his resignation as prime minister. In a BBC interview shortly afterwards, he said he would stay in the Commons until the next general election, which must be held by 2029.

His latest move follows weeks of speculation about whether he would remain as MP after stepping down from No 10.

Labour Seat With Large Majority

Holborn and St Pancras has long been regarded as a Labour stronghold. Starmer won a majority of more than 11,000 votes at the 2024 general election.

The Conservative party has criticised the decision. Kevin Hollinrake, the Conservative chairman, accused Starmer of making another “U-turn” after having pledged to stay on, arguing that it would result in a costly by-election for taxpayers.

While it is not clear what specific international role, if any, Starmer may take up, global issues and diplomacy were prominent during his time as prime minister. In an interview in July after he left office, he was asked whether he had another major political or international job in mind, and he said he did not know.

Precedent After Leaving Downing Street

By standing down soon after quitting as prime minister, Starmer has departed from some recent patterns for former Downing Street occupants.

Rishi Sunak remains the Conservative MP for Richmond and Northallerton two years after leaving No 10, while Liz Truss stayed on as a backbencher until she lost her seat to Labour at the 2024 election. Theresa May remained an MP for five years after leaving Downing Street.

Boris Johnson and David Cameron, however, both quit the Commons shortly afterwards.

Join the discussion?

1 September 2026

View full article

Lecture tour?

No doubt the fascist has a huge offer from Davos or as a EU technocrat.

Good riddance traitor.

Fat pension for life, personal security at taxpayers expense, and now big 'consulting' fees .... not a bad reward for being a total failure.

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

No doubt the fascist has a huge offer from Davos or as a EU technocrat.

Good riddance traitor.

You forgot autocrat and racist!🤦

Ridiculous hyperbole. Starmer might be accused - and guilty - of many things but he is neither a fascist or a traitor (unless you are redefining words as usual).

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

No doubt the fascist has a huge offer from Davos or as a EU technocrat.

Good riddance traitor.

Mods, please can we have a "yawn" emoji? It is desperately needed.

1 hour ago, Kinnock said:

Fat pension for life, personal security at taxpayers expense, and now big 'consulting' fees .... not a bad reward for being a total failure.

I wouldn't say he was a "complete failure". Won a general election, never lost one. As a party leader, that doesn't mark him as a "complete failure". In British politics, the vast majority of Prime Ministers do not end their tenure in their terms. In the 20th Century, on Stanley Baldwin. Churchill and Wilson went out due to ill health. Blair planned to stand down, but it was his party that forced him from office. Party leaders have one goal to measure success; winning a general election. Foot, Kinnock, Hague, Howard, Duncan-Smith, Miliband and Magic Grandpa (Corbyn) were all utter failures.

By resigning Starmer has landed Burnham with something he least of all wants, a bi-election.

...Sounds Like He Has Opted For...'A Change Of Career'....In A Growing Sector...Much More Lucrative... (?)

11 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

Mods, please can we have a "yawn" emoji? It is desperately needed.

Bet you’d collect more than most although unbelievably there are a couple of more traitorous lefties on here.

4 hours ago, Thingamabob said:

By resigning Starmer has landed Burnham with something he least of all wants, a bi-election.

Oh no! A bi-election? I was going to stand in this constituency but I can't now as I'm heterosexual!!!

😢

17 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

I wouldn't say he was a "complete failure". Won a general election, never lost one. As a party leader, that doesn't mark him as a "complete failure". In British politics, the vast majority of Prime Ministers do not end their tenure in their terms. In the 20th Century, on Stanley Baldwin. Churchill and Wilson went out due to ill health. Blair planned to stand down, but it was his party that forced him from office. Party leaders have one goal to measure success; winning a general election. Foot, Kinnock, Hague, Howard, Duncan-Smith, Miliband and Magic Grandpa (Corbyn) were all utter failures.

He himself hardly won the election. The increase in voters to the Labour party was very, very marginal. Most ex Tory votes went to the LDs and Reform. Labour only won due to our archaic voting system. In fact under the circumstances the Labour win was pathetic.

11 minutes ago, Geoff914 said:

He himself hardly won the election. The increase in voters to the Labour party was very, very marginal. Most ex Tory votes went to the LDs and Reform. Labour only won due to our archaic voting system. In fact under the circumstances the Labour win was pathetic.

You would say that about any General Election; the winner never won, the loser lost.

Calling Britain’s first-past-the-post voting system “archaic” is not much of an argument. It's just a rhetorical sneer from you. An electoral system is not a steam engine or a telephone whose usefulness expires with age. It's a constitutional mechanism, and its merits must be judged by what it achieves, not when its principles originated.

Britain’s genuinely archaic electoral system was one of rotten boroughs, restricted property-based suffrage, public voting, bribery and grossly unequal representation. Those features were progressively swept away by centuries of reform.

What remains is a remarkably simple principle: voters in defined communities elect an identifiable representative, and the candidate with the most votes wins.

One may argue passionately that proportional representation produces a fairer relationship between votes and seats, but that is a substantive constitutional argument—not evidence that FPTP is “archaic”.

Dismissing it on the basis of age is particularly absurd when democracy itself is an ancient institution. If FPTP is to be replaced, make the case for why a different system is better; don’t substitute the word “archaic” for an argument.

I suppose a 21st century voting system involves machines and hanging chads.

28 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

You would say that about any General Election; the winner never won, the loser lost.

Calling Britain’s first-past-the-post voting system “archaic” is not much of an argument. It's just a rhetorical sneer from you. An electoral system is not a steam engine or a telephone whose usefulness expires with age. It's a constitutional mechanism, and its merits must be judged by what it achieves, not when its principles originated.

Britain’s genuinely archaic electoral system was one of rotten boroughs, restricted property-based suffrage, public voting, bribery and grossly unequal representation. Those features were progressively swept away by centuries of reform.

What remains is a remarkably simple principle: voters in defined communities elect an identifiable representative, and the candidate with the most votes wins.

One may argue passionately that proportional representation produces a fairer relationship between votes and seats, but that is a substantive constitutional argument—not evidence that FPTP is “archaic”.

Dismissing it on the basis of age is particularly absurd when democracy itself is an ancient institution. If FPTP is to be replaced, make the case for why a different system is better; don’t substitute the word “archaic” for an argument.

I suppose a 21st century voting system involves machines and hanging chads.

Well done, you wrote all that, including the sneer at me yet failed to accept that was a miserable win by Labour in 2024. Now they did win an overwhelming number of seats but the increase in votes Labour got was pathetic. Hardly an indictment of success given the shambolic previous 15 years. 2029 will be interesting with both Labour and the Tories hated equally.

29 minutes ago, Geoff914 said:

Well done, you wrote all that, including the sneer at me yet failed to accept that was a miserable win by Labour in 2024. Now they did win an overwhelming number of seats but the increase in votes Labour got was pathetic. Hardly an indictment of success given the shambolic previous 15 years. 2029 will be interesting with both Labour and the Tories hated equally.

Just shows how statistics can fool you. Even though Labour's share in 2024 showed a very moderate increase percentage wise the actual numbers tell a different story.

In 2019 the Conservatives got 13,966,454 votes and in 2024 got 6,828,925 votes.

In 2019 Labour got 10,269,051 votes and in 2024 got 9,708,716 votes.

In 2014 the Tories lost 7,137,529 votes and Labour also lost votes, 560,335 in fact and yet had a landslide majority.

Hardly a stunning success to lose over half a million votes yet overwhelming come out on top.

On 9/2/2026 at 12:26 AM, RayC said:

You forgot autocrat and racist!🤦

Ridiculous hyperbole. Starmer might be accused - and guilty - of many things but he is neither a fascist or a traitor (unless you are redefining words as usual).

He is a racist who hates white working class Brits.

Much like you, in fact.

8 hours ago, JonnyF said:

He is a racist who hates white working class Brits.

Much like you, in fact.

Ho hum!! Umpteenth time plus one. How many times do I have to explain this to you, Jonathan?

1. I am white

2. I am British

3. I was born working class

4. I don't like or judge people based on the colour of their skin

5. I don't do self-loathing

6. I am (usually) rational

7. I am being rational here

8. Ergo, I am not a racist who hates white, working class Brits

If your intention is to irritate then congratulations; job done. You can stop now.

However, if your intention is to deflect attention away from your own narrow minded bigotry and racism, then you will have to try a great deal harder.

On 9/2/2026 at 1:05 PM, Keeenok Powell said:

Bet you’d collect more than most although unbelievably there are a couple of more traitorous lefties on here.

Yeah, democracy and (relatively) free speech is a real pain in the a*se for far right posters on AN eh?

Much better that the “traitorous lefties” weren’t allowed to call out the far right lies and drivel of the master race then you have a free run at control…..oh hang on that’s been tried before .

Yup, I’m onboard for introducing a yawn emoji.

On 9/1/2026 at 8:11 PM, VocalNeal said:

Lecture tour?

Ukrainian rent boy tour more likely 😋

Who wants to shag him? Not going to have much luck with affairs.

He will be forgotten relatively quickly. I bet if you stopped people in the street in Britain and asked them to name one thing Starmer stood for, they would not be able to answer. Unless they gave an anti-answer like "roboticism" or "blandness" or "sitting on the fence".

1 hour ago, Red Forever said:

Yeah, democracy and (relatively) free speech is a real pain in the a*se for far right posters on AN eh?

Much better that the “traitorous lefties” weren’t allowed to call out the far right lies and drivel of the master race then you have a free run at control…..oh hang on that’s been tried before .

Yup, I’m onboard for introducing a yawn emoji.

Hope I didn’t upset you too much.

I’m guessing the “red” in your name isn’t a football team but a card carrying commie.