Australian Labor learnt from leadership chaos. Britain could be about to

The bile so many Brits spewed about Sir Keir Starmer was something to behold.

Around the United Kingdom — even in rusted-on, working-class strongholds — you did not have to look far in recent months to find people ready to unload on the prime minister.

Never has a Labour leader fallen so far, so quickly in the UK. Less than two years after he claimed a landslide general election victory and delivered the party its second-largest majority in history, Starmer is soon to be consigned to Britain's burgeoning political scrap heap.

There will be plenty of colleagues and constituents keen to see the back of this PM, who on Monday announced plans to resign after months of pressure.

Some of the country's most senior politicians believe it's all a big mistake.

Australia's Labor Party learnt from a similar situation, but it's not yet clear if its British counterparts will do the same.

Whoever replaces Starmer, expected by September at the latest, will be the UK's seventh prime minister since 2016.

This leadership conveyor belt was cranked up under the previous Conservative government. One PM, Liz Truss, lasted just 49 days in power.

Labour was supposed to be different. During his election campaign, Starmer constantly promised "stability" if he took office.

Now, his party has begun feasting on itself, just as its predecessor did.

"We've seen something very unusual in the Labour Party. I mean, the Tory Party [Conservatives] gets rid of its leaders on an annual basis almost," Tom Baldwin, Starmer's biographer and close friend, told the ABC.

"The Labour Party doesn't do this. If you'd said this was going to happen two years ago, I think people would have been surprised that Labour has panicked so quickly."

For Australians, this is an all-too-familiar story.

Labor's 'political execution' sparked shift

Just under two decades ago, Kevin Rudd swept to power in Canberra, promising to revitalise the country.

He said his government would build the National Broadband Network, start an "education revolution", apologise to the Stolen Generations and reduce Australia's carbon footprint.

It started with much fervour. Rudd ratified the Kyoto Protocol, which bound signatories to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, within a few hours of taking office.

Some of his promises were delivered, but the PM never saw out his full term.

Amid sliding approval ratings, driven by voter dissatisfaction over a proposed emissions trading scheme and mining tax, he was ousted by his deputy, Julia Gillard.

Her move shocked many, including then-opposition leader Tony Abbott, who told parliament at the time: "A midnight knock on the door followed by political execution is no way that the Australian prime minister should be treated."

The equation was simple. This was a way Labor thought it could cling to power, even if the method was brutal.

It's a rationale many UK government MPs have been touting this year when explaining why Starmer should resign (despite the fact that a general election is not due to be held until 2029).

The gamble paid off for Gillard, who went on to form a minority government when Australians were sent to the polls two months after she became PM unopposed in a leadership spill.

But it also loomed large over her tenure in the country's top job. Detractors in parliament and elsewhere often exploited it. She never made it to another election.

Rudd was, eventually, reinstated. The drama was considered so regrettable by the Labor Party, it overhauled the way leadership contests were conducted to make sure it would be almost impossible to cut down a PM again.

'We've always got things to learn from our Australian friends'

Putting aside the fact Australia's subsequent Coalition government went on to knife two sitting PMs, Labor moved on.

To trigger a leadership spill and topple a sitting prime minister in Canberra, at least 75 per cent of the party's caucus must now back it. Rank-and-file members, not just elected politicians, also get a say in the ultimate outcome these days.

In the UK, just 20 per cent of Labour's lower house MPs have to nominate a challenger for a contest to be brought on. The party has 403 MPs right now, so 81 signatures are all it takes for a would-be PM to strike.

If there is more than one candidate, it goes to a voting process involving party members and representatives from "affiliate organisations" like trade unions.

While Starmer technically resigned, he did so under immense duress.

The mere threat of ambitious colleagues skipping over his party's low leadership bar was more than enough — and there have been several of those circling.

One of the primary reasons many MPs turned on the British prime minister was the rise in support of the populist, right-wing party Reform UK.

It has, akin to One Nation in Australia, been dominating opinion polls nationwide.

Spooked Labour politicians have been busy backgrounding Britain's brutal media machine, and speculation that Starmer will be pushed has been rife for a long time.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, meanwhile, faces a similar threat from a comparable opponent in One Nation.

But while Starmer has been attempting to extinguish all the friendly fire, his counterpart Down Under governs almost completely unencumbered from malevolence within (when it comes to applications for his job, at least).

Albanese can try to play a long game in a bid to defeat his populist opponents. British Labour did not afford its PM that option.

"We've always got things to learn from our Australian friends," Sir Ed Davey, leader of the UK's centrist Liberal Democrats Party, told the ABC on Monday.

He said British people were "sick and tired of the merry-go-round" at the top of government.

"It doesn't look good. It's damaging internationally. People look at us and say, 'They've lost the plot.'"

After Rudd-Gillard-Rudd, Australian Labor said: "Never again." We're about to find out if the Brits were watching.