Early plans by Labour leadership contender Andy Burnham to overhaul the UK's approach to AI have sparked a backlash from parts of the country's tech sector, with critics warning a more interventionist strategy could undermine Britain's attractiveness to founders and investors.
According to reporting by the Financial Times, advisers to Burnham are developing a new AI and technology strategy that would shift away from what they view as the current government's overly US-centric approach to AI development.
The plans reportedly place greater emphasis on British ownership, tech sovereignty and protecting workers from disruption caused by artificial intelligence.
The proposals have emerged amid growing debate over the UK's AI strategy following the collapse of the government's flagship technology partnership with the US last year and recent concerns over access to advanced AI models after Washington briefly imposed export controls affecting Anthropic.
People involved in discussions around Burnham's plans told the FT the current government's approach amounted to "unfettered tech boosterism" and had failed to deliver meaningful benefits for British workers or voters.
They also suggested a future Burnham government could reassess policies ranging from AI Growth Zones to the rollout of autonomous vehicles.
But the proposals have sparked criticism from figures in the UK startup ecosystem, particularly over suggestions that ministers should question the social impact of technologies such as self-driving cars.
"Not sure if Burnham's team talked to Wayve, but I doubt they'd agree the UK has been in a 'headlong pursuit of driverless cars in London'," wrote Barney Hussey-Yeo, founder and CEO of fintech startup Cleo, on social media platform X.
"They'd instead find it's been insanely difficult to work with the British state and the regulators, even with champions in the cabinet," he added. "Wayve should be a UK success story that you can build and scale here, but instead it's being attacked by its own state and the new leadership."
Hussey-Yeo argued that a more sceptical approach to technology risked further damaging the UK's competitiveness.
"If Burnham and his team are going to be anti-tech then they need to coherently answer where growth is going to come from and how we reverse the decline," he wrote. "Because right now, why would any founder start or stay in the UK?"
Others suggested the proposals reflected a broader tendency in Westminster to prioritise the interests of groups that may be negatively affected by technological change over wider economic benefits.
"There is this strange thing that consumes Westminster: a sense of perverted 'fairness'," said Sam Hogg, head of policy engagement at the Oxford China Policy Lab.
"Rather than ever asking who this is fairest for in terms of the size of the majority, the default is to find perceived fringe victims or groups and ask for 'fairness' on their behalf, even if the majority suffer as a result."
