And so, a new government – another one – with a new cast list. How are we to think about this latest upheaval in Westminster? Does Andy Burnham and his cabinet represent something radical, as his supporters hope, or conventional, as his detractors reply? Does he represent change or continuity?
In one sense, Burnham is trying to be both. Listening to his speech outside No 10 on 20 July, it was hard not to be struck by the obvious contrast with his predecessor: the easy performance, yes, but also his willingness to use the bully pulpit of Downing Street to make an explicitly political argument about what had gone wrong in the country and, therefore, what he intended to do in power. There was, in other words, a difference in style and substance. And yet, watching him, it was also impossible not to hear echoes of his recent predecessors.
“Britain needs to show the world that we can regain our stability once again,” Burnham had said in the opening lines of his speech. People were “fed up with politics”, he continued. The country was in desperate need of a “circuit breaker”. All sensible stuff, you might think. Two years earlier, though, Keir Starmer had stood on the same spot and declared – albeit with a different kind of gusto – that he would navigate the country back to “calmer waters”, ensuring that politics would, in future, “tread more lightly on your lives” and that he would impose a “reset” on the country. Plus ça change, and all that.
Burnham and Starmer are not alone in making such arguments. Rishi Sunak stood outside No 10 two years before Starmer promising a return to “stability”, with a government prioritising “integrity and professionalism” over political theatrics. Britain, it seems, wants two things at once: an end to the political chaos of recent years and an overhaul of the failing political and economic settlement. We want change and continuity.
And why shouldn’t we? Is there anyone who still believes Britain is a well-governed country? At the risk of sounding overly miserable, the series of high political misjudgements and crises that have washed over this country since the turn of the century is really quite remarkable: the wars in Afghanistan (2001-21; lost) and Iraq (2003-09; lost); the great financial crisis (2007-08; crippling) and Brexit (2016; choose your own adjective here). The list is seemingly endless.
The principal division in British politics, until quite recently, was between those who thought the system was broken in some fundamental way – whether economic, political, social or even constitutional – and those who believed it just needed better management. The Starmer and Sunak premierships were, in essence, attempts to prove the latter. Now we have a government and a series of opposition parties who agree that the national settlement is bust and needs overhauling. As I wrote in last week’s cover story, the only question that matters today is when you believe the rot set in: 2016, 2008, 1997 or 1979.
The most significant part of Burnham’s speech earlier this week was the articulation of the argument he first set out in the New Statesman last year: that Britain had been on the wrong track not for a decade, but for 40 years. “In the 1980s, Britain took some wrong turns,” he declared. “Political power was centralised, economic power privatised, large parts of the country deindustrialised, and they still haven’t recovered. Many feel as though they’re still in decline, and they don’t have the ability to turn things around.”
This is the political argument at the core of Burnham’s project: the promise on which he can be judged. Does this mean that he wants to return to the 1970s, as Tony Blair suggests? Of course not, though there is a flavour of late Harold Wilson to his cabinet (if only for the fact that we once again have a Healey moving from defence to the Treasury).
But is the argument correct? In one sense, it is inarguable. The British state has clearly performed poorly for large swathes of this country in this time. Just look at the results. Much of it is poor by average European standards – and has been for decades. No government, whether left or right, has succeeded in changing this basic reality. Will Burnham? That is an altogether different question, which he can only prove with deeds rather than words. Then again, that is what they all say.
[Further reading: Larry the cat and “Ode to Joy”: how Andy Burnham’s coronation unfolded]
Content from our partners
Related
This article appears in the 22 Jul 2026 issue of the New Statesman, The Take Over
Join the debate
Subscribe here to comment