Eighteen months into his premiership, Keir Starmer expressed frustration over the pace of government action, citing procedural hurdles and an overreliance on consultations and new bodies designed to prevent mistakes as barriers to swift decision-making. His concerns resonate with a wider public impatience for change that, according to polling experts, has been building for a decade amid shifting political signals, including Brexit, electoral surges, and recent Conservative losses.

Historically, accelerated government action has often come during crises. Examples include Franklin Roosevelt’s rapid legislative agenda amid the Great Depression, the British war cabinet’s coordinated approach in 1940, the swift nationalisation of UK banks during the 2008 financial crisis, and the pandemic-era lockdown laws that upended standard bureaucracy. Without such emergencies, questions remain whether the British state machinery is too cumbersome to deliver meaningful reform quickly.

Some close to the incoming prime minister, Andy Burnham, suggest this perceived slowness is less institutional and more personal to his predecessor. Labour MP Lisa Nandy has predicted Burnham’s government will be “faster and bolder.” Burnham, a former Greater Manchester mayor, has long advocated for reform in areas such as social care and appears committed to using political capital to push comprehensive solutions. This contrasts with Starmer’s methodical approach, which emphasized milestones and commissions like the one on social care that will report only by 2028.

However, comprehensive reform often entails increased public spending. Burnham has recently signalled concern about the impact of tax increases on employers and pensioners and hinted at moderating planned tax hikes. The new prime minister faces the challenge of balancing speed and boldness with fiscal realities, particularly amid ongoing cost-of-living pressures. Addressing the affordability of essentials, including energy, will be critical to any early economic agenda.

Among the proposals under consideration is a targeted energy subsidy concept advocated by political economist Michael Jacobs, who is part of Burnham’s advisory circle. Rather than broad fuel bill caps like those implemented under Liz Truss, Jacobs suggests subsidizing unit prices only up to a certain level of consumption, aiming to reduce costs by approximately half for average users. Funding this would involve raising the capital gains tax to match income tax rates, a move expected to provoke resistance from wealthier taxpayers but potentially signal decisive change.

Jacobs also proposes a temporary rent freeze as a measure to address housing affordability, acknowledging potential downsides such as landlords exiting the market, but arguing that increased state acquisition of these properties could mitigate supply reductions. He further recommends accelerating council house construction through nationwide development corporations to increase social housing stock.

On the other end of the political spectrum, Tim Leunig, a pro-competition economist recently appointed as a Liberal Democrat peer, has outlined a series of rapid, targeted interventions to reduce costs in various sectors. His suggestions include abolishing ground rents for leaseholders, improving transparency of insurance pricing algorithms, facilitating network access for cable rivals, and enabling generic drug manufacturers to clearly label equivalences to popular brand-name medicines. These measures would require confronting entrenched interests but could deliver relatively quick, tangible benefits.

Despite criticisms of sluggishness, the Starmer government enacted significant reforms in areas where its objectives were clear, such as tenants’ rights, employment protections, and climate policy. Burnham’s administration faces the critical test of defining strategic priorities early and decisively; once direction is established, accelerating implementation may prove more feasible.