Have we ‘gone Italian’? How to avoid the No 10 revolving door
In a few weeks we will probably have our fifth Prime Minister in less than five years. There has been quite a lot of angst about Britain ‘going Italian.’ It is not entirely unfair because a root cause of recent instability has been the collapse of the UK’s traditional two-party system into a more fluid multi-party system, something with which Italians are very familiar. But part of the reason has been failures in leadership which have just not delivered change at the pace voters expect. Is that the fault of politicians who have overpromised and underdelivered? Do we just expect too much of our Prime Ministers? I think it’s more than that: leaders need three distinct qualities – but few politicians possess all three.
I have worked closely with four Prime Ministers since 2010. Governing a democracy is difficult. You have to make promises to win an election and then deliver them within a short timeframe. There is no longer any guaranteed honeymoon period – but if there is one it will be short. And even when the next election is several years off, backbenchers get spooked by scandals, setbacks and local elections – as Keir Starmer has just found out.
And it has got harder. That’s partly because mainstream politicians have not learned to communicate effectively on social media. You can love or loathe his policies, but Donald Trump is probably the most effective communicator of any elected politician on the planet. His mastery of social media meant that despite promising to end wars not start them, his military action against Iran was supported by 84% of Republican voters. But he hasn’t got there by accident: as I was told by his Chief of Staff, he spends up to three hours every day either watching TV, on TV or on social media.
Being a good communicator helps win elections. But it doesn’t make you a good leader. That needs three vital qualities. The first is to be able to win an argument for unpopular change. To solve a difficult problem, you have to persuade people of the need for trade-offs. Welfare reform, for example, is challenging but necessary if we are going to stop parking vulnerable people on benefits in a way that will severely limit their self-respect and chance of a decent life. Ducking it means taxes will have to go up in a way that stifles economic growth. It’s the most pressing trade-off that Andy Burnham will face when he arrives in No 10. But will he be bold enough to take on his own backbenchers?
Tony Blair took on the Labour Party when he announced plans to abolish Clause IV which committed Labour to nationalisation. Margaret Thatcher took on the ‘wets’ in her own party to deliver radical economic reforms. Both liked big, bold battles but it can be done in a more consensual way. Germany’s most effective post-war leader, Konrad Adenauer, persuaded West Germany of the need to join NATO and host American bases in a period when neutrality would have been much more popular. He did it not through soaring oratory but through patience and building trust. However you do it, elected leaders need to shape as well as listen to public opinion.
But being good at winning an argument is not, on its own, enough because hope is not a strategy. Prime Ministers also need a second, vital quality – the ability to turn an vision into change. Lyndon Johnson was not a very attractive personality but passed some of the most consequential legislation of the twentieth century. In a country riven by racial division, his 1964 Civil Rights Act ended segregation and his 1965 Voting Rights Act outlawed the disenfranchising of black voters. He got it through Congress by knowing the desires and vulnerabilities of individual senators, personally approving the transactional deals necessary to get the job done.
That was because LBJ understood that promises have to be delivered. Sometimes that’s not about laws but administrative competence. When Andy Burnham was a minister in the New Labour government, there was a highly effective civil servant, Michael Barber, in charge of the No 10 Delivery Unit. With the full backing of the Prime Minister, he made sure there was a relentless focus on reforming public services. School class sizes and NHS waiting times both went down significantly.
What would be the equivalent delivery challenge today? The most important thing is surely to get the economy out of its low-growth trap. One of the reasons Keir Starmer’s government collapsed was because he couldn’t find enough money for defence. An extra 1% of GDP gives the Chancellor an extra £10-12 billion of tax revenues to spend. But getting there needs disciplined focus on the details of planning reform, energy policy, AI adoption, public service reform and business taxation. I look at all these areas in more detail in my new book Can We Be Rich Again? It’s an optimistic take on what is possible but will Andy Burnham and his new Chancellor put enough time and focus into the detailed legwork necessary to turn around the economy?
Finally, leaders need to be streetwise enough to stay in power for long enough to allow any changes to put down roots. In a democracy the clock is always ticking – and many important reforms take longer than one electoral cycle to bear fruit. Without an element of ruthlessness and cunning, leaders find themselves outmanoeuvred by rivals. Australian Prime Minister John Howard would spend most Sundays on the phone to his backbenchers. He stayed in control of his party and won four elections in a row. Australia’s economy still benefits today from the reforms he put in place. Longevity matters for ministers as well as for a Prime Minister. So one thing Andy Burnham could do from day one is keep his ministers in post for long enough to master their brief and make a lasting difference. Frequent reshuffles are a tempting way to assert prime ministerial authority. But they come at a heavy price if you want to make reforms that stand the test of time. Is it surprising that HS2 was such a debacle when we have had seven transport secretaries in the last 10 years?
Those then are the three qualities you need – the ability to win an argument for change, administrative competence and political nous – but few leaders have all three. That’s why the smart ones surround themselves with teams who compensate for any gaps. Margaret Thatcher had Bernard Ingham to help keep the media at bay. David Cameron had George Osborne to help with the politics and Oliver Letwin to help with detailed policy implementation. Perhaps that was what Keir Starmer intended with Morgan McSweeney and Sue Gray – and his operation fell apart pretty quickly after they left.
But Britain is not ungovernable – nor are the challenges we face any harder than in the past. But as the removal vans once again head for Downing Street, political parties need to remember the difference between winning an election and governing: good communication can get you into office but only effective leadership will keep you there. That means being able to persuade, deliver and survive.
If you liked the ideas in this article, you can dig deeper in my new book Can We Be Rich Again?: The Surprising Potential of Britain’s Economy. If you have read the book please give it a review - good or bad, I’d love to know!
A shortened version of this essay appeared in the Daily Telegraph on 22 June 2026.
+5
Matt Goodwin recently argued that the UK government has spent the last 30 years presiding over "managed decline," chaos, and cultural fragmentation.
What else could you expect?
“Expert Civil Service”…… in any statistical population less than 20% will be expert.
Obviously 50% will be average and of those 50% will be totally inadequate.