The empire is gone, Europe is losing ground, and traditional values are retreating. If history is against us, why risk further disruption?
Conservative philosopher Michael Oakeshott wrote in 1956 that to be conservative is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, the actual to the possible.
In a time of national crisis, many withdraw into private spaces and family lives.
Even in a troubled society, there are winners: prosperous property owners, retirees with good pensions, well-paid workers, successful entrepreneurs, and the super-rich.
They are over-represented in public conversations about the risks of reshaping Britain. Many are not convinced that a more functional, equal country would be better for them.
Other interests profit from instability, such as private equity firms, hedge funds, and bankruptcy specialists.
In their 1987 book Blood in the Streets, William Rees-Mogg and James Dale Davidson approvingly quoted Nathan Rothschild: “The best time to buy is when blood is running in the streets.”
Overcoming Britain's aversion to fundamental reform is not impossible. David Lloyd George, Clement Attlee, and Margaret Thatcher managed it in the last century.
Each was not afraid to make enemies, arguing that vested interests needed to be overcome.
Politics is even more divided now, with more parties and more ways for opponents to make their views known.
If Burnham wants to change Britain, his government is likely to be unpopular for long stretches.
He will need all his famed abilities to connect with people and explain problems in everyday language.
Many voters do want change—that's why they've revolted so often over the past decade.
>>> Severe Hailstorms Devastate Saskatchewan Crops
But they will need regular reminders about why the overheated, unhappy, unequal Britain of 2026 had to be left behind.
