Lest we forget: British-Ukrainian allyship under Burnham
George Marshall and Cianan Sheekey • The Rosette's View • 4 minute read
Image: Lauren Hurley (Number 10) / Flickr
Embedded Files
We all want Britain to be an idealised version of itself, with everyone and their mother having a night-and-day answer as to who is stopping us from getting there. For Reform, immigration is to blame; for the Greens, the uber-rich, and the mainstream parties offer answers somewhere in between. This whole spectrum is troublesome, largely because it is riddled with linear and overly-simplistic answers to Britain’s complicated problems. Immigration has always been a powerful emotional motivator, and a source of socio-cultural friction, but there has never been a clear line of causation as to how it has ‘destroyed the fabric of our nation’. Wealth inequality is an undeniable economic hindrance, but chasing wealth creators with a pitchfork only risks assailing the golden goose of fiscal growth. It is a sign of a geriatric political system, one that has succumbed to over a decade of turbulence, when such quick-fix schemes (or, in short, populism) have become so electorally viable.
In their own way, all parties offer their own version of hope. They lay out their own paths through the forest of political possibilities, often scapegoating specific but ultimately tangible villains in what I’d like to call ‘point-and-shout hope’. If we solve [insert politically relevant fall guy], then our wildest dreams become true. A fallacy, obviously. It is for truly ascendant political parties to create a narrative that actually delivers (positive) change, and since the downfall of Boris Johnson, Britain has had no such entity. It’s tough for even Johnson’s most ardent critics to deny that he was an effective storyteller, finally offering escape from Brexit limbo. Starmer was largely an anti-Tory candidate, exemplified by just how quickly the wheels came off for his ministry. But Burnham is different, and it’s not just a question of optics. A wand cannot be waved and the issues of the day turned into distant memories, and Burnham’s whole Prime Ministership (thus far) has been in touch with that reality.
Image: Number 10 / Flickr
Burnham made clear in his first address as Prime Minister that he wanted to abolish rough sleeping. He was the first leader since Johnson to be so black-and-white with his aims, and followed this up with a shift in how his administration seeks to deliver it. For most leaders, ending homelessness would involve a magic bullet of chucking money at the wall and hoping it sticks, and Burnham hasn’t shied away from public pockets, allocating £442m for the scheme. But he hasn’t just put the cash aside and made lofty statements. Instead, Burnham has an actual system in mind, one that fits within his broader vision for the nation. Building off the back of the successful Everyone In scheme, wherein rough sleepers were housed in self-contained accommodation during the pandemic, the government is allocating funding to local groups for a bottom-up solution. From day dot, Burnham’s ministry has worked under the mantra that local people know their area best. Devolution, therefore, through the allocation of funds to community-based initiatives, provides a genuine mechanism for policy delivery that is grounded in a previously successful scheme. ‘That means councils, charities, businesses, faith-groups, and local communities all pulling together [to end homelessness]’.
The government is trying to generate some authentic hope... through a vision of Britain and of itself that is simultaneously nuanced, complicated, and bold
Instead of relying on the all-too-familiar trick of point-and-shout hope, there is an idea, a system to support it, and a place for that system within the wider agenda of the ministry. Can I, or anyone in said ministry for that matter, claim it’s all going to work flawlessly? Absolutely not. But even in the somewhat Wild West-era that this new administration finds itself in, where many aren’t quite sure what to make of it, it seems Burnham and his allies aren’t going to replicate the same politics of old. Another example of this willingness to break old habits can be found in the realm of social care, where meetings have been held between the sitting government, Conservatives, and Liberal Democrats. Though the fruits of this labour have not yet been unveiled, with the Tories proving somewhat obstructive, the mere idea of party leaders sitting down and talking policy seems like the kind of endeavour in consensus-building that could, with a bit of vim and vigour, overcome Parliamentary stagnation on myriad issues.
This trend, changing not just the policy ends but its means, aims to produce something we haven’t seen in British politics in a long time. The government is trying to generate some authentic hope, not the populist kind via facetious isolated words about quick-fix schemes, but through a vision of Britain and of itself that is simultaneously nuanced, complicated, and bold. The potential is there, although only time will tell whether it is truly met. It won’t be everyone’s ideological cup of tea, and never could be, but the problem with hope is that it’s hard to resist, even for its naysayers. After everything this country has endured over the past 15 or so years, this turning of the corner ought to be welcomed. Let’s just hope this new dawn doesn’t emerge behind an overcast sky, the kind Westminster has grown all too accustomed to.
Edit log
•Published: 11/09/26
Google Sites
Report abuse