Secondly, changing prime ministers has become a function of political parties, not the electorate. Dropping an unpopular leader before an election worked for the Tories in 1990 when they ousted Margaret Thatcher, but it has now become a reflex as much as a strategy. In 2019, the Tories threw out Theresa May in favour of Boris Johnson, and again it worked. Now Labour has taken up the habit, turning, most probably, to Andy Burnham as a charismatic saviour to follow an unpopular, wooden predecessor.
Burnham, like Johnson, also comes with a new philosophy to throw around. In Johnson’s case it was ‘levelling up’, which was never clearly defined and fairly swiftly began to look like a con trick. In Burnham’s case the new menu item is “Manchesterism”, an idea that also needs some explanation.
Manchesterism is the philosophy of government Burnham employed as metropolitan mayor of Manchester, which revolves around a view of what he calls “the productive state”. He believes he can bring real growth in productivity and a rise in actual prosperity for working people by selective public investment in infrastructure projects, cheap travel and a supply of affordable housing. This is an updated, business-friendly version of socialism, which lays aside much of the cultural agenda of the modern left.
Lastly, many in Britain have become convinced by cynical populists that our political heritage is somehow not connected to our cultural heritage, so they want to throw away our political heritage of acceptance and inclusivity in an attempt to preserve a bespoke version of our cultural heritage, which they see as exclusive, unchanging and xenophobic.
There is undeniably much wrong with Britain and the British state. Everybody says so. But does the new five-way politics offer any way out?
Of the five parties, none can currently muster an approval rating above the mid-twenties. Worse, there aren’t many natural coalitions available between the major contenders, as the three biggest parties are all sworn enemies. This is unquestionably the sign of a divided nation.
It is also hard to believe that any of the five is likely to produce stable, competent government. The Labour Party has problems with its traditional base; it’s no longer clear whom the Conservatives represent; the Lib Dems don’t have a single issue around which voters can coalesce apart from rejoining the EU; the Greens have strong support amongst the young but don’t have a secure policy framework; and Reform UK, the current frontrunners, have serious problems with leadership, policy issues, party structure and a new rival outfit to their right—Restore Britain—led by Rupert Lowe, a former Reform MP. Lowe will not lead his party into government, but he can do serious damage to Reform in any future general election, because he has taken the most radical members of Reform with him, and with support running at a little less than 10 per cent, he can expect to deny victories to Reform all over the country.
So, our major political parties have lost their traditional identities, are out of touch with their support bases and have become addicted to the idea of changing their leaders as a way to fix their problems. Sigh. The history of football tells us that the clubs who change their managers most often tend to be the least successful. Lessons should be learned.
Andy Burnham, our likely next prime minister, appeals to the optimist in every Labour supporter, but no one knows whether he will be any good at running the country, or whether his new raft of policies will be any more effective or work any quicker than previous attempts from both major parties.
As for Reform UK, its leadership is fractious and inexperienced, with a programme for government that changes constantly under pressure from the further right. Its voter base is even more fractious, and highly averse to compromise. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, Reform’s bid for power looks like the unsuitable in pursuit of the unleadable.
If this were happening two hundred years ago, we would look ripe for invasion and takeover by… the Brits.