Looking at the U.K. from over the Atlantic, you might well ask: What on earth is going on? (That is, if you’ve noticed at all.)
When Andy Burnham launched his new regime outside Downing Street on Monday, he became the U.K.’s fifth Prime Minister in the last five years. In that time, we’ve covered a lot of political ground here in Blighty; from an abortive two-month attempt at libertarianism under Liz Truss to technocracy under Rishi Sunak and social democracy under Keir Starmer. Leaders of both main parties have had a go at fixing Britain’s deep-rooted issues.
Now Burnham enters the breach to try his hand too. But what to make of the man dubbed the “King of the North”?
A bit of background. Despite his newfound power and attempts to present himself as an alternative to the stale politics of Westminster, Burnham has been lurking around British politics for years.
In 1998, Burnham joined the Tony Blair government as an advisor, at the age of 28. In 2001, Burnham was elected as the Member of Parliament for Leigh – his hometown in Greater Manchester. Between 2007 and 2010, he held three cabinet roles in Gordon Brown’s government, including Health Secretary. Out of government, he unsuccessfully ran for Labour leader twice; once in 2010, losing to Ed Miliband, and then in 2015, losing to Jeremy Corbyn.
He is most famous for his tenure as Mayor of Manchester, which lasted between 2017 and 2026, when he gained plaudits for facing down central government during the COVID pandemic over regional lockdown funding. Now, after stepping down as mayor, being elected as an MP and securing sufficient backing from within the Labour Party to become leader, he is Prime Minister.
The next consideration is whether, after jumping through these hoops to reach the top job, Burnham will be up to the task.
We can look at three key issues: the economy, immigration, and defense. The first two are of particular electoral importance.
Economically, Burnham comes from a deeply statist tradition within the Labour Party. An ideological enemy of Margaret Thatcher’s economic revolution in the 1980s, when the Iron Lady exposed Britain’s stagnant industries (many of which were based in the North of England) to market forces, Burnham used his opening speech as prime minister to lay out his economic vision. He will “build a new economy,” and will “put life’s essentials back under stronger public control to make them affordable”.
Overseeing this vision is John Healey, who has been appointed chancellor. Though Healey is considered a safe pair of hands, this economic vision is anything but. It is important to remember that this approach has been tried before when, in the 1970s, Britain spent beyond its means and had to go cap in hand to the International Monetary Fund for a loan in 1976. Similarly, the problem with Britain’s economy now is not that the state has too little involvement, but far too much. Excessive regulation has caused growth to flatline and hiring to slump. Without economic dynamism and job creation, we Britons will not feel materially wealthier any time soon.
Now to immigration, Labour’s bête noire. Sensible Labour politicians have known for some time that immigration must come down, but have not known how to articulate or execute this without alienating their cosmopolitan, progressive base. Burnham is slightly different and has hardened his stance on the issue in recent years. Overseeing immigration control is Shabana Mahmood, who has been reappointed as Home Secretary. Mahmood is from the supposed right of the party – known as “Blue Labour” – and has maintained the immigration restrictions brought in by the Conservatives and is trying to extend the amount of time needed for permanent residency from five to 10 years. While robust for a politician of the Left and undoubtedly a positive step, many on the Right would argue she does not go far enough, as she stops short of wanting to overhaul our immigration or asylum systems entirely.
Finally, and most importantly for readers across the pond, comes defense and foreign policy. While not always a priority for voters, it is a vital issue, and Keir Starmer’s insufficient funding for the area catalyzed his downfall. Burnham has appointed our former Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, as Defense Secretary, and our former Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband, as Foreign Secretary.
These are two very different men. While Streeting is broadly considered a pragmatist, he has no defense experience, which is an increasingly urgent issue. Decades of underinvestment have brought us to a perilous point: despite the regular army having about 74,000 personnel, only around 54,000 are medically fit and ready for deployment, fewer than the casualties Russia sustains every couple of months in Ukraine. Already Streeting is faltering, refusing to commit to the new chancellor’s calls for increased defense spending of 3% by 2030.
Miliband is a more volatile character. As energy secretary, he was zealous on the green agenda and highly resistant to President Trump’s calls to shore up Britain’s supplies of oil and gas in the North Sea. As foreign secretary, Miliband is likely to continue in his anti-Trump vein. In the past, Miliband has called Trump “racist, misogynistic self-confessed groper” and described the president as having “lowered the bar for idiocy.” While the pressures of government have forced Miliband to soften his tone in recent years, he has already hinted that as foreign secretary he will prioritize relations with the European Union.
If you’re still wondering what on earth is going on, you couldn’t be blamed. Much of Burnham’s vision for government will merely reheat the Starmer administration, with all the same risk aversion and misplaced instincts that ultimately led to his resignation. Political predictions are a fool’s errand, but if I was a betting man, I’d put my money on this Labour government being just as much of a circus as the one it succeeded.
***
Joseph Dinnage is Senior Press Officer at the Prosperity Institute.
.png)
.png)
