By: Alex Hagemann, Senior Policy & Public Affairs Manager
Andy Burnham’s victory in the Makerfield by-election proved to be the straw that broke the camel’s back for Sir Keir Starmer’s premiership. After months of fighting successive rearguard actions, the Prime Minister’s five-year mandate came to an abrupt end. He will most likely be succeeded by Mr Burnham, who at the time of writing is the only Labour candidate to have declared his intention to stand for the leadership.
Sir Keir’s successor will become Britain’s seventh Prime Minister since 2016. For comparison, the seven Prime Ministers before 2016 take us all the way back to Harold Wilson, who entered Downing Street in 1974. Such rapid political turnover inevitably raises an important question: is Britain becoming more difficult to govern?
Since the 2016 Brexit referendum, British politics has become more fragmented, with support increasingly spread across parties outside the traditional two-party system. Governments may change, coalitions of opinion may shift and political priorities may evolve, but there remains one area where consensus is remarkably resilient: The UK needs more high-quality, reliable infrastructure.
This is not a controversial proposition. Roads, railways, ports, airports, power networks, water systems, digital connectivity, schools and hospitals are not ideological projects; they are the foundations upon which economic growth, productivity and national prosperity are built. Whatever one’s political persuasion, modern infrastructure benefits businesses, communities and households alike.
Recognising this, Sir Keir’s Government established the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA) and published a 10-Year Infrastructure Strategy. Both interventions were designed to address one of the UK’s longstanding weaknesses: the tendency for infrastructure policy to change with political cycles. Likewise, the Government’s appointment of Sir Jon Cunliffe to undertake an independent review of the water sector demonstrated the value of apolitical, evidence-led policymaking. These measures help depoliticise infrastructure – giving investors confidence that projects and priorities will outlast individual governments and ministerial reshuffles.
Public finances alone can’t shoulder the burden required by the enormous investment requirements associated with upgrading Britain’s transport networks, energy systems, housing infrastructure, digital connectivity and water assets. By attracting institutional investment, the UK can accelerate delivery, spread financial risk and unlock projects that might otherwise remain on the drawing board.
Crucially, these investors bring not only capital but also technical expertise, operational discipline and experience of delivering complex infrastructure programmes at scale.
None of this diminishes the role of government, which remains responsible for setting strategic priorities, establishing robust regulation and ensuring that infrastructure serves the public interest. But when public policy is stable and regulation is credible, private capital can become a powerful partner in delivering the infrastructure upon which future economic growth depends.
Investors require evidence of predictable regulatory environments and stable policy frameworks before committing billions of pounds to projects with returns that may not be realised for twenty or thirty years. Every cancelled project, every abrupt policy reversal and every change in regulatory direction carries a cost to government credibility and Britain’s attractiveness as an investment destination.
With the Prime Minister now stepping down, there will inevitably be healthy political debate over the direction of the next government. However, one principle should remain above party politics: long-term infrastructure policy should not be rewritten every time there is a change in political leadership.
If Britain is serious about growth, then infrastructure must remain one of the few areas where long-term national interest consistently outweighs short-term political advantage.