Never mind what the series of recently rather short-term renters in Number 10 Downing Street have been occupying themselves with. The main thing is they know how to take care of the cat, the apparently most enduring occupant at the residence.

One must grant it to Ben Jennings. His sketch in the Guardian on 17 July 2026 presents a piece of utterly funny, self-deprecating humour in the face of the painful fact that the country has not been able to produce one successful head-of-government during the last ten years who would have been capable to ensure the contentment of the people over at least a full-parliamentary period, a fact increasingly undermining trust in UK democracy and harming the nation.

But why exactly did the six previous PMs fail? And what must he do differently? Those are the critical questions Andy Burnham must look into, if he does not want to be the next in the line and hand over the keys to PM number eight in another two or three years’ time.

The problem of governing on the basis of personal convictions only

If we look over the series of six short-term Prime Ministers over the last ten years, one thing which they had in common is that they all governed following their own personal ideas and convictions about how to govern and to run a government. One result was David Cameron’s “Big Society” project for example, a project not thought through and born “dead in the cradle”, as even members of the Conservative Party suggested. Dominic Cummings, chief advisor of Boris Johnson, published a job advertisement calling for “weirdos and misfits with odd skills” to apply to government. Fresh ideas might be useful, but where is the structure in such an approach? And there was obviously Liz Truss, whose unusually “personal approach” to government collapsed after only six weeks.

Yes, Andy Burnham might have a different personality from his predecessors, radiating optimism and a can-do-attitude. One question we might want to ask is, why a nation would have to go through six unsuccessful heads-of-government to finally arrive at a successful one on the seventh turn only. But there, unfortunately, already are indications that Burnham is falling into the same trap as his predecessors. “I know what I want to do, working with you all“, he declared in his speech as the new leader of the Labour Party and designated new Prime Minister. “I have a plan”, he continues, “and what I also want you to know is that I won’t change. I have a style; it’s my style.”

Yet, ultimately, this is what all six unsuccessful Prime Minister’s before him had as well, a “plan” and their “style”, their “personal idea” on how to run a country and its government machinery. At first the people did put their hope in them; approval rates were high. Then their approval rates dropped, partly rapidly so. Once in office, the newly elected leaders disappointed the people and failed.

Identifying the foundations for an effective and stable government

Clearly, one cannot build a stable skyscraper without laying proper foundations for it. This is also valid for governing a nation of tens or even hundreds of millions of people in a complex world of eight billion people and for running a complex government machinery of thousands or perhaps a million people, a hugely difficult task. One cannot build a stable and effective government, without laying sound foundations and reflecting systematically and thoroughly about what governing means and requires.

But what are those foundations for effective and successful government?

Ultimately, clarifying this answer requires comprehensive consultation and the input of all relevant know-how in society.

The very first precondition, one might suggest, however, is the understanding by a head-of-state that running a nation of millions of people in a complicated world of billions of people cannot be subject to personal ideas and convictions of individual persons on how to govern. A head-of-state must be ready to investigate what sound methodical and systemic foundations for governing are. This is what we must learn from marvelling at the series of six failed, short-term  Prime Ministers in a row. (Well, they tried. Maybe that must be acknowledged.)

Second: One needs a hammer or a similar tool to drive a nail into a board. Likewise, a head-of-government needs a tool, a system, concretely a “Government Performance Optimisation System” to optimise the performance of the government machinery. It is a logical necessity. There is no way around it. A single person cannot lead a huge government machinery of thousands or perhaps a million people effectively by him- or herself. The task of this Government Performance Optimisation System must be to systematically reflect on and research the question how to govern optimally and how to make the government system perform optimally. Given the logical necessity of such a system, for any head-of-government not to install a Government Performance Optimisation System must be considered negligence in the execution of his or her duties towards their nation.

Third: Logically the first step in clarifying the foundations of proper government for the  Government Performance Optimisation System to take, must be the identification of the very best methodology or methodologies for ensuring “optimal government performance”.

One reason why the previous Prime Ministers failed is the fact that they all thought their own intelligence, experience, and personal convictions would be sufficient to run government successfully. They failed to recognise and acknowledge that our rationality including their own is “bounded”. It does not suffice to deal adequately with the huge complexity of our world. This is why we need Problem Structuring Methodologies, also called “tools for thinking” for solving complex problems, including also for determining, how to govern a nation properly. Clearly, running a nation in our complex and unhinged world is a hugely difficult task, whichever tools we might use to govern more effectively. Yet, if the six failed PMs had analysed systematically with the help of such Problem Structuring Methodologies what it means and requires “to govern properly”, they might still be in office.

One fundamental mistake which our governments make and which is the outflow of a lack of sound methodical thinking about governing is the idea that they need to preserve democracy by showing that “democracy can deliver”. US President Joe Biden expressed this reasoning in a major speech before Congress in April 2021: “We have to prove democracy still works — that our government still works and we can deliver for our people.” He failed, at least in convincing the people of his achievements, with the dire consequences for the US and the world we see. Burnham also declares: “…people are looking for us to deliver, and we will.”

But in a complex and changing world no head-of-government can wave a magic wand. No government system, however effective it may be, may be able to “deliver” what people expect, jobs, satisfactory income, low cost-of-living etc. But without a functioning democratic steering system our societies will collapse. People need to hold on to democracy, even if it fails to fulfil all their wishes. A systematic analysis of the foundations of government will show that preserving democracy must be a prime policy issue in its own right and that government must design suitable policies to achieve this aim, including an effective citizenship education system. As far as our economic well-being is concerned and the many other challenges our societies face, the only thing we can and must aim for is to make our democratic government systems perform optimally, so they are able to deal as effectively and efficiently as possible with these challenges. Even in a difficult world, one overall aim we must pursue is to maintain a co-operative and sound society on the basis of a functioning democracy.

For Andy Burnham, a “personal plan” and “aiming to deliver” will not suffice, just as it did not for his predecessors. If he wants to be successful in serving the nation, stay in office, and stabilise UK democracy, he now must establish sound foundations for his government with the help of an effective Government Performance Optimisation System. He must systematically and comprehensively think about what governing effectively means and requires. If he does not do it and, and if he, just like the previous heads-of-government, continues governing based on personal ideas and convictions only, then he is likely to fail just like them and will further weaken UK democracy and harm society. Any head-of-government in any democratic nation must optimise the performance of government for the sake of their nation, of the people, and the world.