A hard left turn for Britain?

Yesterday, British politics were on full display as the nation watched its seventh prime minister in the last ten years assume office and pass through the necessary sequence of events. None of this was a surprise, since watching the fall of former Prime Minister Kier Starmer was like watching an accident in slow motion, over and over again. Starmer had led the leftist Labour Party to an historic electoral victory in 2024, but within less than two years he was seen as a political liability.

To put the matter bluntly, Britain has long bragged that its parliamentary system with a prime minister as head of government offered more political stability than America’s division of powers between three branches of government. There have been moments when at least some Americans might even have agreed with them, but this is not one of those moments—not even close.

Prime Minister Andy Burnham made the obligatory visit to Buckingham Palace yesterday and received a royal invitation to form a government. He then stood in front of No. 10 Downing Street and spoke to the nation. “I have accepted His Majesty the King’s invitation to form a government,” he stated. He then made clear that he understood the context: “In doing so, I am acutely conscious that I am the sixth person in the last ten years to walk up this street, the seventh prime minister since 2016, making this a moment for reflection and new resolution.”

Shortly thereafter, Burnham pledged massive change in direction for the nation, declaring the need for a “circuit breaker” for the nation. He may come to regret that metaphor.

The political upheaval in Britain represents a genuine political crisis. The bare facts of the new political reality include the fact that the United Kingdom is facing a real fiscal crisis. Net economic growth is only about one percent a year. The nation’s economy, for decades a source of tremendous strength and stability, is stalling. Furthermore, Britain is not currently in the driver’s seat when it comes to digital transformation and developments such as artificial intelligence.

Many American conservatives have watched as Britain’s famed Conservative Party has fumbled the ball over and over again, often abandoning policies that had rescued the nation from economic disaster and embracing leftist agendas such as the legalization of same-sex marriage. The Tories, as they are popularly known, shifted left and abandoned many of the policies that, under British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, had transformed the nation.

Now, Andy Burnham rose to leadership in the Labour Party by arguing for an outright reversal of Thatcherism, right down to nationalizing some of the sectors that Thatcher had rescued and reinvigorated decades ago. Burham rose to political prominence within the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair, who largely continued Thatcher’s economic policies. Now, he presents himself as an activist committed to socialism, calling for a new industrial policy. Much of what Burnham says sounds like the old Labour Party of the 1970s, and not by accident. At least some observers understand the problem: Burnham is calling for a return to the policies that nearly bankrupted Britain two generations ago. Furthermore, he seems to yearn for a return to industries of the past, the central focus of the Labour Party for decades. But, as a columnist for The Telegraph noted, “You cannot save dinosaurs from a changing world.”

At the very same time that candidates openly associated with the Democratic Socialists of America are gaining traction in the Democratic Party, along comes Andy Burham as the self-proclaimed leader of a new socialist wave in Britain.

But is that even true?

There is no question that Andy Burnham, most recently mayor of Manchester, had branded himself as a torchbearer for a new socialist wave. And yet, there is no money to pay for the revolution he has promised, and to the consternation of some in his own party, his first appointments included a Chancellor of the Exchequer who seemed chosen to reassure financial markets. Maybe Burnham is not so radical as some hope. Then again, maybe he will turn out to be more radical than many already fear. It is certainly true, as The Telegraph also noted, that Burnham and his new government are “dangerously devoted to failed ideas.” That’s not encouraging, to say the least.

We should also note that Andy Burnham is the first openly Roman Catholic prime minister in British history. It says something about the secularization of the society that few seem to have noticed.

In any case, the new prime minister faces multiple challenges, including those that doomed such a series of leaders before him. Britain is such a close and important ally for the United States, and its political patterns have often predicted similar developments in domestic politics here. That said, Americans should hope, along with so many of our British friends, that Andy Burnham turns out to be different in office than advertised. If not, Britain is headed for big trouble—and that trouble will threaten much more than the future of the United Kingdom.