The British Public Is to Blame for the U.K.’s Dysfunction

Keir Starmer has fallen. Long live Andy Burnham! Or Angela Rayner or Wes Streeting, or Yvette Cooper, or whichever other poor, downtrodden sod manages to finagle the job of prime minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for a few sweaty and bruising months before this interminable game of political hot potato chooses a new victim or, if interrupted by an election, lands in the lap of a different party. At this point, taking the reins of the British government is a little like becoming the drummer in Spinal Tap. You know that you’re going to be toast pretty soon; the only interesting question is how.

It would, I concede, be rather cathartic for me to list all the ways in which Keir Starmer was a historically terrible premier. But, as it happens, I have a different target to roast. Peruse the channels of sophisticated opinion in England today, and you will inevitably encounter some variation of the argument that the United Kingdom has of late become “ungovernable,” because its “complicated” electorate desires a set of public policies that cannot coexist. British voters, this supposition runs, want housing to become more affordable for the young and for the existing housing stock to retain its value; they want taxes to stop rising and for more money to be spent on the health service, on pensions, and on care for the elderly; they want the price of energy to go down and to achieve “net zero”; they want Britain to start inventing things again and for their island to retain its sprawling archipelago of regulations; they want to be welcoming and “diverse” and to acknowledge that the country’s infrastructure is already bulging at the seams. As a descriptive matter, this may well be true. As an excuse, however, it is thoroughly inadequate. Substantively, there is no real difference between it and the suggestion that the median voter in Britain is seven years old. Voters want everything, all at once, with no trade-offs or sacrifices to be seen? Of course they do. Who wouldn’t? But adults ought to know that this is not possible. Where are the adults in British political life?

About the Author

Charles C. W. Cooke

Charles C. W. Cooke is a senior editor at National Review and the host of The Charles C. W. Cooke Podcast.

Featured Tags

Keir Starmer has fallen. Long live Andy Burnham! Or Angela Rayner or Wes Streeting, or Yvette Cooper, or whichever other poor, downtrodden sod manages to finagle the job of prime minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for a few sweaty and bruising months before this interminable game of political hot potato chooses a new victim or, if interrupted by an election, lands in the lap of a different party. At this point, taking the reins of the British government is a little like becoming the drummer in Spinal Tap. You know that you’re going to be toast pretty soon; the only interesting question is how.

It would, I concede, be rather cathartic for me to list all the ways in which Keir Starmer was a historically terrible premier. But, as it happens, I have a different target to roast. Peruse the channels of sophisticated opinion in England today, and you will inevitably encounter some variation of the argument that the United Kingdom has of late become “ungovernable,” because its “complicated” electorate desires a set of public policies that cannot coexist. British voters, this supposition runs, want housing to become more affordable for the young and for the existing housing stock to retain its value; they want taxes to stop rising and for more money to be spent on the health service, on pensions, and on care for the elderly; they want the price of energy to go down and to achieve “net zero”; they want Britain to start inventing things again and for their island to retain its sprawling archipelago of regulations; they want to be welcoming and “diverse” and to acknowledge that the country’s infrastructure is already bulging at the seams. As a descriptive matter, this may well be true. As an excuse, however, it is thoroughly inadequate. Substantively, there is no real difference between it and the suggestion that the median voter in Britain is seven years old. Voters want everything, all at once, with no trade-offs or sacrifices to be seen? Of course they do. Who wouldn’t? But adults ought to know that this is not possible. Where are the adults in British political life?