X Close

Will Philip Larkin make Burnham a good prime minister?

A Study of (Andy Burnham’s) Reading Habits. Credit: Getty

A Study of (Andy Burnham’s) Reading Habits. Credit: Getty

28 June 2026 - 4:00pm

If — or when — Andy Burnham is anointed leader of the Labour Party, he will be the first prime minister to have studied English literature at university. Whereas Keir Starmer was happy to admit in an interview that he doesn’t have a favourite novel, and that he doesn’t even dream, Burnham is a literary man. He has read all of Shakespeare, told the New Statesman that his favourite novel is Middlemarch (“a classic English student answer”), and his favourite poets are Tony Harrison and Philip Larkin.

Once upon a time, our prime ministers were all readers and writers: Harold Macmillan joked about going to bed “with a Trollope”, and Benjamin Disraeli wrote 12 novels — most notably Sybil, a vast condition-of-England novel about the suffering of the working classes living in urban squalor. And who could forget Boris Johnson’s overlong farce, Seventy-Two Virgins?

But what will it mean now to have a reader as our leader, at a time when English as a subject finds itself at a nadir? Earlier this week, the University of Exeter announced proposals that could see up to 25% of its English faculty lose their jobs. Last month, the University of Hertfordshire dropped its English course entirely, saying it was “no longer financially viable”. According to The Week, “between 2011 and 2021, the number of students studying English literature at university fell by a third,” while “across UK universities, undergraduates studying any type of English degree dropped by 19 per cent between 2019-2020 and 2023-2024.” Could Andy Burnham save the English degree?

English is a comparatively young academic subject, beginning in the so-called “civic” universities of London and the North, including UCL, King’s, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Birmingham, Liverpool and Nottingham. The pioneers of English were followers of Matthew Arnold seeking to institute “culture” as an antidote to “anarchy”. But from its very first days, the subject suffered from an identity crisis: how do you turn the leisure pursuit of reading into an academic subject that is verifiable and examinable? Then, as now, English was seen as a doss.

Burnham studied English at Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, from 1988 to 1991, where he was taught by the academic John Mullan. The subject then would have been broadly unchanged from the Cambridge English Tripos of the Twenties, the most successful attempt to establish English as a rigorous academic subject. A key figure then was F.R. Leavis, who saw this training in reading as a moral imperative that was crucial for the preservation of a “minority culture” threatened by “mass civilization”.

But Burnham presents himself as more sympathetic to mass culture than Leavis. In fact, he told the New Statesman that studying English “kills your love of reading” as “it can lead to over-analysing everything”. How far Burnham would go to prevent the further implosion of UK universities is as yet unknown – but so, too, are many of the rest of his policies.

How might Burnham’s English degree serve him as he prepares to enter the top job? He credits his skill as a communicator to his love of Shakespeare, so he will be familiar with manipulation, betrayal and tragic missteps. But there is perhaps no better preparation for inheriting the country that Starmer will leave him than for Burnham to re-read Larkin’s 1972 poem “Going Going”, a portrait of national decline that could well have been written 10 minutes ago:

On the Business Page, a score
Of spectacled grins approve
Some takeover bid that entails
Five per cent profit (and ten
Per cent more in the estuaries)

Of course, if Burnham is to find success at No. 10 and turn things around, he will need more than just words. Otherwise, as Larkin put it, “that will be England gone.”


Joseph Williams is reviews editor at Critical Quarterly.


China is threatening America in the AI race

Reports sugget Zhipu AI  has released a new model that can rival leading US systems. Credit: Getty

Reports sugget Zhipu AI has released a new model that can rival leading US systems. Credit: Getty

1 July 2026 - 10:18am

China is trying to catch up with America on artificial intelligence. The Wall Street Journal has reported that Zhipu AI — one of China’s six “AI tiger” LLMs — has released a new model that can rival leading US systems, including Anthropic’s Mythos, in cybersecurity tasks such as pinpointing security bugs. While this marks a milestone in China’s drive to catch up with Western AI capabilities, strong performance on a single benchmark does not mean it has taken the lead. Chinese models still lag behind their Western counterparts in broader capabilities, such as autonomous operation. Skepticism is therefore warranted before resorting to hysterical conclusions, but complacency about the geopolitical implications of China’s AI advances would be an even greater mistake.

On the infrastructure side, Chinese AI is still constrained by access to advanced chips, with American labs way ahead in computing capacity as well as investment. Analysis from earlier this year suggests that Chinese models are likely to be at least a few months behind those in the US. But they are still continuing to make progress, or that the geopolitical importance of AI will be decided only by whose LLM has ventured deeper into the technological frontier. The practical applications of AI, countries’ to capture foreign markets, and the application of AI into the real economy will matter just as much.

Here, China may hold an advantage. As with its dominance across many critical supply chains, Beijing may not need to produce the most advanced AI systems — only those that are affordable and widely deployable. In doing so, it could consolidate global influence by supplying functional, low-cost AI at scale.

Beijing seems to be pursuing exactly that path, developing an AI “open-source” strategy that offers affordable, widely available AI models for companies and individuals to use and modify as they wish. The production of the DeepSeek AI model, which matched the performance of Silicon Valley tools such as ChatGPT at a fraction of the cost for users, created goodwill among Chinese models with developers.

The four most popular models on OpenRouter, an AI hardware platform for developers, are now all Chinese. The goal for China is not only to win the frontier-model race, but to make its systems the default layer of AI adoption across industries and global markets. For most economies, the choice is increasingly between an affordable tool they can deploy now and a more robust one that may be out of reach.

And while the countries adopting Chinese models may be exposed to political pressure and cyber threats from Beijing, safer and more capable alternatives matter little if they are unaffordable. American AI companies are already under pressure to monetize products whose operating costs are rising. If Chinese open-source models become the cheap default for startups, universities, governments and businesses across the developing world, then America’s AI lead will be eroded from below.

Perhaps more concerning for America in the long run is how AI can give Chinese manufacturing even more strength, through the ongoing integration of AI as a general-purpose technology. China’s new Five-Year Plan mentioned AI more than 50 times and includes an “AI+” action plan aimed at spreading AI across the economy.

Beijing has been pioneering automation of its critical infrastructure for years, with promising recent results in increasing warplane production capacity. In that regard, China’s open-model strategy and manufacturing dominance will reinforce each other. Cheap, adaptable models accelerate deployment across the real economy while those deployments generate real-world data and use cases that can feed back into further model improvement.

The United States should not dismiss the importance of its lead in the AI race. That lead worries Beijing, not least because a more automated Chinese economy would also become more vulnerable to AI-generated cyber threats. But nor should Washington assume that China cannot catch up with American capabilities over time.

This AI competition represents part of a broader struggle over tech supply chains and geopolitical influence. Decisions over whether to adopt US or Chinese models could produce a more fragmented global reality, with different regions relying on different cloud providers, chips and security structures. The result will likely be a global economy which is divided into competing spheres, rather than one which produces a single winner.


Miquel Vila is a political and geopolitical risk consultant focusing on industrial strategy, critical infrastructure and global supply chains.

miquelvilam