Andy Burnham tried to present his great economic and social vision in the House of Commons yesterday, blaming Thatcherism and Brexit for the state that we are in. If that is how he wants to describe neoliberalism, I do not dispute his analysis. The trouble is, he then failed to present a coherent alternative.
As I heard and read his comments, I think he set out five major policy proposals:
- There will be a major transfer of political and economic power from Westminster to regions, councils and communities.
- Public control over essential services, such as transport, water, energy and housing, will be strengthened.
- An active industrial strategy will bring together business, universities and the government.
- There will be greater public investment in housing, technical education, employment support, mental health services and local infrastructure.
- Number 10 North will coordinate this regional policy and redirect civil service capacity away from Whitehall.
Let me be clear, I am not arguing with these ideas. I am worried about the absence of detail on how they might be delivered, as that remains very unclear. I am always worried about what was not said, because that is always important when appraising any such announcement.
As example, Burnham described the government as “an enabler of a more productive economy”. He described water privatisation as a “leaking monument” to an economy run for the benefit of private interests. But he did not talk about nationalisation.
Instead, he continued to focus on relatively small policy changes, such as a temporary VAT cut and a continuing commitment to a £2 bus fare cap.
He gave no spending figures, indication of financing programmes, or timetables for taking utilities into public ownership, even though that appears to be his desire.
There was instead a recommitment to the government's fiscal rules whilst suggesting that cost-of-living measures should be “re-prioritised within government”.
I came away with the feeling that, at best, we are going to see Andy Burnham reshuffle government spending. Whatever he commits to will, I suspect, be matched by suggested cuts elsewhere. I strongly suspect that all he is suggesting is being framed within 'the Treasury View ', which demands balanced budgets even if they are never delivered. That is because we heard no indication at all that he understands that the government creates the money that it spends and that when there are spare resources within the economy, the government can put them to use without creating the risk of inflation arising. Instead, on a day when the media was talking about rising government borrowing costs, he appeared to bow to the Bank of England's approach to controlling inflation.
This was particularly reinforced by the fact that whilst Burnham said that mortgages, energy and living costs were too high, he did not challenge either the Bank of England's interest rate policy or its approach to quantitative tightening, which is ongoing with the deliberate goal of keeping interest rates in the UK as high as possible.
Maybe that explains why there was no description of an investment programme in anything Burnham had to say, nor any hint of a new approach towards taxation, including stronger redistribution or an attempt to impose additional tax on excessive wealth, economic rents, unearned income, monopolies and tax abuse.
As a consequence, there was also no indication of a plan to improve the actual income of those people who cannot afford the cost of living. As indication of that, nowhere did he discuss improved trade union rights, new approaches to collective bargaining and industry-level minimum pay negotiations or a new approach towards social security, all of which would have to underpin any policy for growth which he said he was announcing, but clearly was not.
Nor did he at any point reconcile his growth plans with those for climate change. He nodded towards the issue, but saying that he will attend climate conferences is not the same as having a green transition strategy. There was no mention of a reindustrialisation strategy being designed around decarbonisation, energy security, adaptation and the rebuilding of national energy resilience.
Nor was there any substantive indication of a new approach to Europe. He blamed Brexit for a lot, but he left off the table what he will actually seek to achieve in negotiations with Brussels.
In fact, the potential impact of the international arena, from Trump to an AI crash, was all left for another day. And that is not an option Burnham now has. He could do that in Manchester. He cannot in Westminster, but it was, in essence, ignored.
The consequence is that, although he spent a considerable time at the Despatch Box, the impression was left that he has not yet thought through what his premiership is to be about, as I have previously suggested. Nor is he prepared for the challenges it will present. It would appear that he wants to be the king of devolution, but devolution without a proper financial settlement is not only meaningless, but all it does is also devolve responsibility whilst leaving others to tackle the Treasury when he would appear to be unwilling to do so.
The impression that Burnham is a man missing many of the ideas required to create, let alone deliver, a strategy was reinforced as a result.
Words might come very easily to Burnham. Meaningful ones do not.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I predict a shortage of buttered parsnips!!
As far as I can recall, Burnham is the first labour prime minister to blame Britain’s ills on Thatcherism. It is one step forward. I want many more. The Conservatives are going to defend Thatcher. Thatcher is also what separates the conservatives from reform. They have competing ideas about the meaning of her legacy and what it means to be a Thatcherite. There is going to be conflict a about this legacy. Burnham, if he is to win, will have to make his argument even more clearly.
On devolution – I see power being concentrated in regional mayoralties, more of which will be imposed on areas that don’t have them or want them, along with further abolition of local councils. Mayors will be carefully groomed and disciplined by Downing Sts. N & S, to carry out the will of Westminster, manipulated by the political rationing of centrally distributed money, to give an impression of “growth”.
In WECA we see this happening, two succesive Labour WECA Mayors, with the power to franchise the buses, have refused to do so while dreaming out loud about mass transit systems in the far distant future.
I presume he didn’t manage to overcome the Downing St. speech impediment, and mention “g-g-g-genocide”?
I’ll catch up on paliamentlive, later.
Oddly quiet on genocide….
The genocide is ongoing along with the ethnic cleansing of the west bank and southern lebanon. I believe this government to be fully committed to the greater israel project.
Richard, you mention Burnham’s attitude to Brexit. I was a committed remainer but that was before you taught me about MMT. Now I’m not so sure about rejoining because one of the conditions imposed will probably be a commitment to adopting the Euro. In your opinion (I realise it can only be an opinion not a prediction but I value your opinions) would the loss of control over money creation outweigh the economic advantages of a return to EU membership?
I am not saying rejoin. I am saying a plan is needed. The EU has all its own issues, I agree.
In reality, the “commitment” to joining the Euro is pretty nominal. There are several countries, like Sweden, who have “committed” but show absolutely no inclination to take it any further. It shouldn’t be a showstopper to rejoining the EU.
There are more problems for the EU than that, though.
If I remember rightly we have Mrs Thatcher’s wonderchild Lord Hague to thank for keeping us out of the Euro in the 90s. Having control of your own currency is vital to a truly sovereign nation as Richard’s teaching continues to point out. You just have to know how to use it properly.
Wrong.
It was Gordon Brown who did that.
You might watch/listen to UvdL’s State of the Union speech today. She affirmas ‘European Values’ as a state of ongoing agression against Russia in a continuing, even never ending period of military engagement. State budgets will be sacrificed to this with social care much diminished. Who on earth would want to rejoin this version of the EU?
I heard her talk about savings earlier this week and that they must go into shares
I groaned…
I agree, we’ll have to see what comes out in the wash today but it looks like lipstick on a pig to me.
Just listen to the Today programme this morning, main commentators (along with wheeling out Jim O’Neill) all saying there has to be an end to the triple lock and welfare needs to be reduced.
That’s the direction of travel.
Also mentioned bond yield increases due AI too, which most level-headed people can see is going to be a disaster on lots of different levels.
Great opportunity to start banging the drum on the alternatives to the same old, same old.
As you often say, much to agree with. However it must be said that wedded as he may be to a naive Treasury orthodoxy when it comes to the economy, at least Burnham’s heart appears to be in the right place, even if his head is not. It also looks like the choice at the next election will be Labour offering PR for future elections or a Reform government with the strong likelihood of no future free and fair elections at all.
In short the choices are Burnham or Fascism.
Wrong. Totally wrong. Do not be so defeatist.
“ . . impression that Burnham is a man missing many of the ideas required to create . . . deliver, a strategy” – ABSOLUTELY.
Possibly, ex-Mayor Burnham is here to head UK’s holed, if not sinking, ship because of the looming threat of independence by Nrthn Ireland, Scotland & (perhaps) even Wales. Last week Burnham, visiting Belfast, arrogantly stated a united Ireland is “off the table”. Well actually, not for Whitehall to dictate, the Good Friday Agreement explicitly enshrines self-determination: solely for the NI people to determine. The State’s stymying the Scottish Court of Session to conduct its own judicial review regarding Palestine Action (See Craig Murray’s blog) seems another likewise indicator of Whitehall arrogance.
Of EU and Brexit: frankly I couldn’t support it as it now is. But I stress that we owe to the EU something like 80% of all our environmental regulation & planning legislation; & why I went on London marches and got lied to by ‘nadir Keir’. One other important EU framing was from Maastricht: ‘The Principle of Subsidiarity’, which means political decisions should be made at the lowest relevant governance level within the State. An undigestible concept to our minimalist neoliberal establishment.
Over decades, Central & Local government expertise has been shed, rendering a ‘stupid’ client situation, highly dependent upon the consultant (corrupt?) gravy train. Burnham’s extolls Mayorships, empowered to override local decision making. HMG’s Rewiring the State statement (31.07.2026) advocates eradicating consultation processes, stressing Mayors as “a single point of accountability”, in practice a sham.
No, I think the establishment is bent on a mission to dissemble democracy, when its renewal is needed, and to weaken independence voices through distraction & fracturing of governance.
Thank you for listening to Burnham so we don’t have to.
I’ve just suffered watching today’s PMQ’s. As expected, there was total acceptance by Burnham of the framing of Badenoch’s questions on the economy. Badenoch used the phrases “tax payer’s money, “markets will be worried”, “where will the money come from” and “it’s either higher taxes, more borrowing or spending cuts”. In reply, Burnham used the phrases “fully funded”, “plan for growth”, “fiscal responsibility” and “get debt down”.
As I said, he is destined to fail.
That is the path he has chosen.
“the impression was left that he has not yet thought through what his premiership is to be about”
Pure Starmer redux with chrome plating. The words are unctuous and satisfying, but the scabbard is empty. In the absence of actual leadership, he will follow the default path of neofeudalism, FTZs, austerity-lite, uncontrolled NATO funding, EU integration, Zionist imperatives and all the other wrack carried on the receding tide of Western economic and political failure. And already I can see the restless voters wondering if Burnham Labour is the safer choice when Labour’s real agenda (as Nigel and others above point out) is unchanged and no different from Reform, Tory or Restore. One of his first acts was to reappoint Mahmoud and give Smeeth a job. How obvious does it have to be?