Andy Burnham says he will go faster than Starmer on delivering change, but history shows why speed in politics is so hard to achieve. Eighteen months into the 24 it turned out he would last in No 10, Keir Starmer was a man in a hurry. The biggest frustration with the job, he told MPs, concerned “speed and the ability to get things done.” The underlying problem, he thought, was that every time something had gone wrong in the past, successive governments have put in place another procedure or another body or another consultation to try to stop ourselves ever making a mistake again.
In airing his impatience, if little else, Starmer is in tune with the country he has become too unpopular to lead. Julian Gallie, a pollster at Merlin Strategy, says voters have been “crying out for change for a decade,” even if they have sent inconsistent signs about what sort of change it should be. The Brexit vote, the Corbyn surge of 2017, the Johnson majority of 2019 and the Tory rout of 2024 can all be seen as a desperate roll of the dice against a status quo that somehow feels impossible to shift.
Find Bleeding Edge Supplements at Scandalous Prices on iHerb.
Why Political Speed Is So Rare
History suggests that the single most useful tool in shaking off stupor is something Andy Burnham doesn’t obviously have – an emergency. The classic case is Franklin Roosevelt’s first 100 days. It wasn’t just eloquence but the ubiquitous bankruptcies, redundancies and collapsing banks of America in 1933 that enabled him to bulldoze 15 major laws through a rancorous Congress.
The British war cabinet’s sudden embrace of full political union with France in June 1940 is less remembered, only because the speed of the emergency overtook that plan. When faced in 2008 with the cashpoints running dry within hours, a UK government that had just spent months dithering over little Northern Rock suddenly summoned the resolve to nationalise half the banking system. In the pandemic, a blitzkrieg of new laws locked citizens in their homes while slumbering bureaucracies awoke and improvised ways to pay for people to stay off work.
Comparing Burnham and Starmer on Speed
| Leader | Approach to Change | Key Challenge |
|---|---|---|
| Andy Burnham | Promises to go faster, focus on regional and social reform | Lacks national emergency mandate; limited executive power |
| Keir Starmer | Calls for speed but constrained by bureaucracy and public opinion | Unpopularity and procedural inertia slow progress |
Key Takeaways on Political Speed
- Emergencies enable rapid reform – from FDR to the pandemic, crises break bureaucratic logjams.
- Public demand for change is high, but voters send mixed signals about direction.
- Burnham faces structural limits without a national crisis to leverage.
- Starmer’s frustration mirrors a wider systemic issue in UK governance.
FAQ
Why does Andy Burnham think he can go faster than Starmer?
Burnham argues that a more localized, devolved approach and a focus on social priorities can accelerate change, bypassing Westminster gridlock.
What makes political speed so difficult to achieve?
Bureaucratic procedures, multiple layers of consultation, and the lack of a unifying emergency often slow down reform, as seen in UK governance.
Can Burnham deliver faster change without a crisis?
History suggests major speed requires a sense of urgency, but Burnham may leverage local mandates and public frustration to push incremental reforms.
Browse the Shop
Acacia frida deluxe solid wood bed frame |
Bedroom bench |
Bed chest drawers |
Lingerie dresser |
Frame base |
Mirror with jewelry storage |
30 Bathroom Vanity |
Memory foam queen mattress |
Mattresses for back pain |
Nightstand set of 2 |
Grand Goldman Shop |
Civil Lawyer
Deutschland Trikot WM 2026
