And so, with the polite good humour for which he is renowned, Andy Burnham gently shredded the reputation of his predecessor – and indeed of other past Prime Ministers, Labour included. Yes, he took pains to praise Sir Keir Starmer’s endeavours and achievements. But he also plainly signalled his discontent with what he billed as “four decades of neo-liberalism.”
There would be, he said, “a new path for Britain”. Which is platitudinous. There would be little point in changing leader unless the direction of political travel also altered.
But how about the promise to be “distinctively Labour”? There was a faint echo here of Tony Blair’s pledge to govern as New Labour, in keeping with his campaign. But only faint. Burnham evidently has different priorities, including public ownership and industrial intervention.
And what about his offer to fix the big things that politics has neglected? He means, principally, social care – with which Scotland has already wrestled. But, again, that is a rebuke to his predecessors, both Conservative and Labour.
Read more:
- What Andy Burnham’s path to Number 10 means for Scotland
- By-election upsets for Swinney and Starmer. Only one will survive
- I watched Scottish politics fracture. Here's what comes next. By Brian Taylor
- This Labour contest is divisive and damaging. But essential, says Brian Taylor
He argues that point-scoring partisan discourse, as practised for previous decades, has demonstrably failed. And that he wants to lead structural change founded upon transferring power to the regions and communities of these islands. Including, where it fits, in Scotland.
To be clear, once more, he is not primarily talking about further powers for the Scottish Parliament. Still less, at this stage, a referendum on independence. He is talking about “deeper” devolution, involving perhaps the development of a regional element in Scottish politics, such as in metropolitan Glasgow.
But, perhaps, Andy Burnham might also take a lead from a great Scottish sage. Asked to name important Scots, a survey of Americans came up with Shrek and Groundskeeper Willie. The accent, you understand.
But an earlier generation might have opted for Montgomery “Scotty” Scott, the Chief Engineer on the USS Enterprise. Under pressure, the redoubtable Scotty silenced a plaintive Captain Kirk. His voice rippling with Caledonian exasperation, he told his commander: “I cannae change the laws o’ physics!”.
Similarly, Andy Burnham is unable to change the laws of arithmetic. Indeed, grounded Northerner that he is, he seems to recognise the futility of such a task. He has said that he will adopt the fiscal rules of Rachel Reeves on borrowing and accumulated debt. He will maintain the triple lock on pensions.
Further, he has indicated that he will stick with Labour’s restrictive manifesto pledge that there will be no alterations to the main rates of income tax, National Insurance and VAT – although, as Starmer and Reeves displayed, that leaves some room for manoeuvre.
Undoubtedly, that is designed to perform a dual task. To adhere to a manifesto which won Labour the election – and now provides him with the capacity to visit the King in search of power; and to offer a degree of continuity, particularly to fretful markets.
That is understandable in the light of pre-emptive warnings from the International Monetary Fund. The IMF say that Britain’s new PM should focus on growing the economy and reducing the UK deficit. In short, should reallocate public spending rather than increasing it through higher tax.
What about economic growth, which has been stagnant and stuttering for a prolonged period? Burnham says that he wants to drive growth in every postcode of the UK. But that is mostly about spotlighting his regionalism agenda, his Manchesterism. What does it signal about Treasury policy on tax and spending?
Sir Keir Starmer also accorded priority to growth – then, to the fury of business, increased National Insurance for employers. It seems unlikely that Burnham will reverse that – but he insists he will be pro-business in office.
And spending? Can he trim the cost of benefits? If so, he will need a better narrative than that of Rachel Reeves who sounded almost gleeful as, counter-intuitively, she curbed the Winter Fuel Allowance – before being forced into a humiliating U-turn.
On taxation, Burnham has in the past indicated possible support for levying revenue from wealth rather than simply income. But there is, understandably, little detail at this stage, fundamental reform would take a considerable amount of time and it might not generate the anticipated return.
Still, he is determined to evoke change. Who might accompany him on this task? The current Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, tried hard to impress the incoming boss as she delivered her Mansion House speech this week.
(You know, the posh do in the City of London. White tie. Tails. Gordon Brown usually sported a business suit and a stern expression.) Reeves spoke at length about the significance of regional economic resilience. Was Andy listening?
I very much doubt it. The smart money for Chancellor now appears to be on Shabana Mahmood, the present Home Secretary. Earlier tips included Ed Miliband, from the Left of the party. Or Wes Streeting, whose star seems to have dimmed a little since he quit Starmer’s Cabinet. We will learn next week, after Burnham is appointed by the monarch.
In earlier remarks, the next PM indicated that he intended to set out a ten-year programme of structural reform for the UK and its economy, founded upon the lessons he had learned as Mayor of Manchester.
But, of course, anxious voters won’t wait 10 years. And this is not a new dawn for Burnham, not a glad confident morning. He inherits Starmer’s majority – but also the disquiet endemic among the citizenry.
Plus there are pressing matters. Starmer deserves considerable credit for keeping us out of Trump’s war in Iran and for offering staunch support to Ukraine. But neither of those global conflicts is settled. They will land on Burnham’s shoulders.
He will have to decide whether to endorse the defence spending package announced by Starmer just before stepping down. He will have to decide the UK’s stance in pending talks about improving links with the European Union. Decisions too are needed on licensing North Sea oil and gas fields. Energy stability runs up against environmental objections.
Mostly, he needs to devise and promulgate a coherent narrative about his endeavours to make life better for folk. Starmer failed in that regard, despite his inherent decency and dignity. Labour needs Burnham to do better.
Brian Taylor is a former political editor for BBC Scotland and a columnist for The Herald. He cherishes his family, the theatre and Dundee United FC.
Share