When Andy Burnham arrived in Parliament on Monday as the Labour Party’s great hope for political redemption, the only thing missing was the white steed.
The former mayor of Greater Manchester swept into the chamber for his swearing-in with the flourish and charisma that his fellow party members are praying will deliver them from electoral disaster.
He took a selfie with hundreds of his new colleagues behind him, everyone beaming at the change they hope is coming.
It now appears almost certain that Mr. Burnham will succeed Prime Minister Keir Starmer after other potential rivals stood down and endorsed him on Monday.
In Westminster, the home of Parliament, Mr. Burnham is already being treated as the prime minister in waiting.
But if Mr. Burnham is that successor, he will soon preside over a government that faces all the same challenges that prematurely ended Mr. Starmer’s premiership after less than two politically gruelling years.
They include a sagging economy, chronically underinvested public services, an increasingly powerful populist movement, and the never-ending challenge of dealing with President Trump.
“There are no good choices being faced by this incoming government — it’s a terrible inheritance,” said Luke Sullivan, who was Mr. Starmer’s political director before he became prime minister.
“The major structural problems that face the U.K., the major global and international security headlines that face the U.K., aren’t going to change,” Mr. Sullivan said.
“He’s got a chance. But the path he’s going to have to tread, and the needle he’s going to have to thread to deliver — it is incredible.”
Notably, Mr. Starmer’s resignation came the day before Tuesday’s 10-year anniversary of the divisive Brexit referendum on June 23, 2016, when a slim majority of Britons voted to leave the European Union.
Perhaps no issue has bedeviled Mr. Starmer more in his two years than the economic sluggishness that many economic experts attribute in part to slow growth because of Britain’s self-imposed isolation. That sluggishness has left many Britons frustrated with their wages, the cost of living, and their overall quality of life.
That sentiment was common in recent weeks in Makerfield, the area in northern England represented by Mr. Burnham. Voters will now look to him to solve the issue.
“When we see our lot in life and our life isn’t going the way we want it, we see those with all the wealth and the power, and you think, ‘Why am I paying me taxes and how come I haven’t got a fair share of the things I’m working for?’” said Paul Kirkwood, a retired operations manager who supported Mr. Burnham.
The next prime minister will also inherit other issues that Mr. Starmer struggled to address.
Last year, he set a goal to drastically increase the country’s military spending at a time when the United States, under Mr. Trump, was pulling back its commitment to defend Britain and Europe.
Mr. Starmer promised a plan that lays out how he would pay for the new defense spending.
That plan still has not been unveiled more than a year later. This month, Defense Minister John Healey resigned in protest of what he said was Mr. Starmer’s intention to announce a lower-than-necessary level of spending, accusing the prime minister of being too afraid to cut services or raise taxes.
As the new prime minister, Mr. Burnham will have to decide what to do. Does he stick to Mr. Starmer’s plan, angering the military while sparing social programs? Or does he tell Britons that they need to pay more for reduced services to finance a military required to keep the country safe in a dangerous world?
Neither is a popular option.
“He’s inheriting many of the same constraints,” said Rob Ford, a professor of political science at the University of Manchester. He said Mr. Burnham had repeated many of the promises that Mr. Starmer made, “which rules out many of the biggest levers for raising tax.”
“So, you know, where do you find the money from if you want to deliver on defense?” he added.
Part of the problem for Mr. Starmer has been the huge government debt that rose sharply after the global financial crisis and then again during the Covid crisis and Russia’s war with Ukraine.
Since coming to office, Mr. Starmer and his chancellor, Rachel Reeves, have tried to confront that by keeping to strict self-imposed limits on spending to reassure the bond markets.
That made it hard to keep the party’s promises about investing in the things people voted for.
Early in his tenure, Mr. Starmer proposed an overhaul of welfare that would have cut some services for poor people in exchange for $5 billion in savings to the government.
After a revolt among his Labor Party members, he reversed course, adding to his reputation for backing down under pressure.
Mr. Burnham will not enter the office with the same reputation. But neither will he have a silver bullet for such entrenched problems.
Immigration is another challenge in Britain, one that has helped increase support for Reform U.K., the populist right-wing party led by Nigel Farage. Many Reform supporters say the country needs to do more to limit immigration.
Mr. Starmer has embraced an aggressive crackdown on immigrants, and his government has sharply increased the number of deportations of illegal migrants.
More recently, he has supported a proposal by his home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, that would place strict new limits on the number of migrants allowed to enter Britain.
How will Mr. Burnham confront the same questions? In recent weeks, he has expressed a desire to allow migrants to integrate more quickly into British society. But he has also signaled support for Ms. Mahmood’s aggressive approach.
Perhaps no issue will be more vexing for Mr. Burnham than figuring out how to handle the current president of the United States.
Early on, Mr. Starmer chose to cozy up to Mr. Trump, hoping that would benefit Britain during tough moments. That seemed to work at first.
An invitation for Mr. Trump to a state dinner with King Charles III helped ease the way to a relatively good trade deal.
But when Mr. Starmer stood up to the president over using British bases to launch attacks during America’s war with Iran, Mr. Trump lashed out.
He repeatedly mocked Mr. Starmer, calling him a coward. By the end, Mr. Starmer’s relationship with the president appeared to have dwindled to a mostly perfunctory one, although Mr. Trump did refer to him as a “lovely man” on Monday, while castigating him for his policies on immigration and wind power.
There is no indication that Mr. Trump even knows who Mr. Burnham is. But if the former mayor becomes prime minister, he will have to learn quickly how to deal with the president on big issues of foreign policy — an area with which Mr. Burnham has little experience.
Professor Ford said that while Mr. Burnham will inherit his predecessor’s challenges, he will also bring different strengths to confronting them. Unlike Mr. Starmer, who struggled with the politics of persuasion, Mr. Burnham is a better storyteller, Professor Ford said.
