The litany of crises that plague the United Kingdom dig deep into historic divisions that impact its foreign policy. The overwhelming influence of London’s financial service sector on the world stage as compared to the rest of the country. The fractured love-hate relationship with Europe which has caused multiple constitutional crises. Even the inability of successive governments to remain stable enough in the face of party infighting to prevent further calamity to the bond markets. All of this paints a grim image of a country that has both lost its way and knows not how to climb back towards greater prosperity or reputation.
One problem endemic to the UK is low productivity. Britain’s ability to project its labour and innovation as a valuable resource has been kneecapped by repeated failures to encourage investment in British companies compared to European neighbours or North America. The lack of a British industrial base has only worsened the value of British labour internationally. This has been accompanied by the overpowering growth of the financial services sector, accounting for over 8% of total GDP. If one makes the difficult choice to traverse outside of Central London and the South East or the City of Manchester which many think define the UK, they will encounter tens of millions of people that never recovered from deindustrialisation. This has caused a brewing resentment over this ‘left behind by politicians’ mindset. Most politicians either struggle to recover that trust or use it for their own popularity.
Britain’s difficult relationship with the European Union (EU) has also caused the deepening of divisions through traditional lines, leading to greater factionalism within the main governing parties of Labour and the Conservatives. Many in British politics, other than some fringe extremists, have broadly coalesced around the generational foreign policy issue of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in whole-hearted support between the UK and Europe towards Ukraine. This has even seen cooperation as third-party partners in EU defence programs like Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), to expedite munitions and troops across European Union states. However, the bitter quarrel over leaving the EU led to the collapse of the David Cameron and Theresa May governments given their inability to navigate the tides of negotiating and seeing through a deal which could be presented as successful or satisfactory for enough of the Conservative party.
Another shameful feature is lack of governmental stability. Experiencing 6 changes in Prime Ministers since June of 2016 does not present a country which international allies can reliably build lasting relationships with and best coordinate policy outside of the civil service. One must question the source of such instability. One reason might be the power that parliamentary parties have over an administration, especially the larger they become. As Keir Starmer, Boris Johnson and May’s cases have shown, scandals, lack of conviction and failure to affect change having promised so, create discontent within the party machines that Prime Ministers ultimately become enslaved to when a leader’s legitimacy is called into question. The chaos following Johnson’s resignation led to the transition to Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak in just over 3 months and the economic lunacy that period caused. This shambolic display ultimately created the discontent that brought Starmer to power and that which irreversibly damaged the Conservative party in its current form.
Starmer’s ability to negotiate through difficult Trumpian attacks on allies and maintain support for Ukraine is broadly in keeping with the wider European trend towards greater defence spending. However, these gains were not enough to prevent the discontent resulting from domestic shortcomings and the staggering decision to appoint Peter Mandelson, a machiavellian figure within Labour old guard with close public ties to deceased pedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, as Ambassador to the US. Suffice to say, the damage such an appointment has had on the ‘special relationship’ will remain long into the future and require careful contrition and bridge-building. Starmer’s resignation opened the door for Andy Burnham and other figures within Labour to cannibalise the corpse of Starmer’s government and sweep into power. Doing so has allowed the narrative to proliferate of Burnham of a populist figure who will take the fight to another rising populist threat to Labour and the Conservatives in Reform UK. Reform is representative of a discontent, born from wider structural problems like lack of infrastructure, stagnating economy, wider cultural debates over identity and patriotism and the historic perception of the UK as never escaping its postwar ‘managed decline.’ All of these are issues that have given many across the British public the image of Labour and the Conservatives as self-serving incompetents unable to control their own ranks.
Whilst Labour married itself to ‘hope’ and ‘change,’ increased scrutiny that comes with the role will draw into question their fiscal and economic acumen, which will determine the reaction of international investors. Burnham won his Makerfield parliamentary seat through a campaign focused on metropolitan success as Mayor of Greater Manchester and the promise of change. However, little evidence currently exists to suggest that he is the economically savvy leftist firebrand that the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) want him to be, similar to figures like Yanis Varoufakis in Greece, himself ousted as Finance Minister by economic instability that bled into foreign policy. Questions are also common as to whether he has a thorough grasp of the macroeconomic problems facing Britain. Therefore, to confront these challenges, which have anchored British leaders, left and right, for decades, future leaders will have to prove they can transcend ideological barriers which may inhibit their ability to directly tackle issues such as low productivity, worsening inequality and governmental barriers to growth. However, this may risk losing the devotion of some in the PLP who wedded such hope to Burnham as a panacea to the perceived New Labour/Tory duopoly.
If any future UK government wishes to boast of any foreign policy successes such as new trade deals, increased cooperation with allies or inspiring the British public to believe their defence and military is up-to-task, any future leader or party must build a brand which meets these conditions. Firstly, an economic policy which can stand up to scrutiny and risk no propaganisation by enemies from all sides as fantasy economics, (a common attack line over the past decade). Secondly, said leader must learn to control their party machines through more than just temporary charisma which loses flavour once scrutiny comes into play. Thirdly, defence spending and increases to tech and industrial manufacturing must become further front-and-centre policies to meet the foreign policy challenges of the day. Finally, crafting policies that incentivise future generations to reap the rewards of working and staying in the UK rather than seeking opportunities elsewhere to Britain’s loss.