Sometimes, I do not get the chance to watch everything that I would want, but one of the roles that Jacqueline has taken on within the Funding the Future operation is to draw to my attention things that she thinks are important, but which I have missed.
It was her suggestion that I should watch the exchange between Andy Burnham and Kemi Badenoch at Prime Minister's Questions this week, because she thought it so telling. I have to agree with her.
Andy Burnham's missing ten-year plan was on the table. I now gather by inference, rather than as a consequence of direct answers, that something on this may come out next month, but what was staggering about Burnham's performance, most especially in comparison to that of Kemi Badenoch, was how poor he was at the Despatch Box.
It was only a couple of months ago that he made his first appearance there again, after a long break. At first, he appeared in command, but all that confidence has now gone. To put it bluntly, Kemi Badenoch is walking rings around him.
To my amazement, she is now very confident at PMQs. She's direct, witty, and more than able to rise to the occasion, even if I very rarely agree with anything that she says.
In contrast, Burnham looks out of his depth, lost as to what to say, and his jokes come rarely, or are predictable and poorly delivered. To be frank, he simply does not look up to the job.
Worse, he spends most of his time asking Kemi Badenoch what she would do. He seems to have forgotten that this is Prime Minister's Questions, not questions to the Leader of the Opposition about what she would do if she had his job so he can then borrow her ideas. But that is what it now seems to be.
I am left with the inevitable conclusion that Burnham got the job he desperately wanted but has no clue how to do it. He quite literally seems to be asking for advice from somebody who has no more experience than he does of leading, governing, or understanding what this country is, so desperate is he.
As for that ten-year plan, I know where I am going with mine. The next two videos in the series are now recorded, and a fourth is written, but it seems he has almost no clue as to what he is doing. Even now, there are no hints being offered, apart from the fact that he will commit to a national care service, which would appear to be little more than a lapel badge, and not something of substance.
It was only just over two months ago that I thought of the concept of my new book, How to Govern. The text has now been supplied. Most of the 30 or so infographics for the book have now been delivered as well. And what Andy Burnham is proving, every time that I see him, is just how badly this country needs a new politics of the sort I describe in that book, led by people who actually do understand what political conviction means, what the instruments available to a government to use might be, and how they can combine these two in a way to deliver well-being, which is something that Andy Burnham will never achieve if he carries on as he is at present.
There are moments when I believe that we need a revolution in government in the UK to deal with the crises that we face, and that is precisely what I thought when watching Prime Minister's Questions from this week. If it came to occupying Downing Street, I would have no more confidence in Badenoch than Burnham. After all, she is mean-spirited, has a taste for performative cruelty, most especially when it comes to benefits, and was part of the disastrous Johnson, Sunak and Truss litany of failure. But, most especially, neither of them has a clue about economics or the role government plays in it, but they are apparently what we have to choose between. I despair.
It's time for a change, and the sooner we get it, the better.
When this book is done, I have a horrible feeling that I will be starting work on its follow-up. I think I am going to need to.
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!
The whole thing (PMQ) has been turned into a sideshow. I no longer watch it. It is just mostly a bunch of people being seen to be in charge and nothing more.
While they are clearly very different jobs given that Burnham has been both a Cabinet Minister & Mayor of Manchester its surprising that he seems so lost now as PM.
Having said that a comment I heard from Merchant Navy officers was that there were many capable and energetic First Officers who when given command of a ship didnt make the transition.
Perhaps then this is what we are seeing
The Peter Principle in action
I guess one might say that Burnham has a concept of a 10 year plan.
Kemi doesn’t understand climate.
Andy doesn’t yet get that that climate is the most important issue humanity has ever been confronted with.
Both true.
But according to the PR people Burnham is getting away with it at the moment<p>
Pretending he has big aspirations – ‘overturning 40 years of neoliberalism’, while doing the small things – ‘giving people ‘breathing space’ – a hundred quid off energy bills, capping bus fares. stopping subscription traps, vaping and betting shops, school uniforms and airline seating charges etc.<p>
‘providing a steady stream of relatable, intelligible initiatives that travel well online'<p>
The ‘Burnham bounce’ in the polls seems to be being maintained – and that is keeping his MP’s pretty quiescent<p>
His funders wont let him take water into public ownership – he has the temerity to fly to COP31 and say ‘we are taking the lead in renewables’ as we drill for more oil and gas, and he will continue to squander ‘investment’ in useless unworkable small nuclear, Carbon Capture and Storage .<p>
Everything points to the fact that even if he did have ideas – he is the creature of the forces who put him there – within our corrupt political system – running on vested interest money.
Just as a side note to the ‘Small’ nuclear issue.
IF we actualy were doing significant research and development into future ‘small nuclear’ that might actually lead to worthwhile outcomes.
But we are not. We never have.
It is all spin and no substance.
An American company has been through almost the entire regulatrory approval process in the USD with a ‘small’ reactor.
It started out as a 70 MegaWatt design.
After providing containment that would pass the regulators scrutiny, and fuel handling practices that were accepted by the regulator, they ended up with an 80 MegaWatt small reactor.
If our ‘small modular’ reactors WERE small, and WERE modular, that would be something that could be rapidly deployed AND THEN REMOVED LATER but nobody in the Nuclear closed shop of the government and lobbyist complex has any interest in that.
🙁 🙁 🙁
I have thought for a while that Badenoch could come through the middle of the five way party landscape and end up as PM.
That would be utterly disastrous, and I do not see it.
What are these UK politicians afraid of and who do they fear????
I am sure I am wrong on all counts but the only options I can come up with are “The City” and “Global Financial Markets”.
The best thing about the Blue Tsunami that hit the USA on 3 November 2026, it that the democrats no longer fear in anyway the garden-variety MAGAts and Donald Trump’s fake Republicans (Racist Fascist invasive varmints masquerading as small “c” conservatives). Since the arrival of Trump, rank-and-file Democrats had been overly concerned with upsetting the right-of-center voters and losing elections. It is now perfectly clear that no one could upset the “center” more that Trump. Democrats are now to a large degree “fearless” which is a necessary attribute to have in order to govern properly making BIG changes (see Churchill and Attlee bios on Wikipedia).
So again, I must ask, who are the Tories and Labourites afraid of?
Their City funders.
They are owned.
Thank you, Richard.
This allows me to share a tidbit from Whitehall.
À town hall, involving Healey and Burnham, was held soon after the budget, say thank you and rally the troops (as civil service morale is bad and has been for well over a dozen years).
Burnham implied that neoliberalism works and has worked for Britain, but the benefits of such an approach have not been distributed around Britain. This is where a form of devolution comes and greater use of consultants in Whitehall and outside London.
This is where their preferred suppliers, BlackRock, led by infrastructure boss Adebayo Ogunlesi, Boston Consulting Group and JP Morgan, led by political affairs boss Chuka Umunna, sic, come in. They are almost camped in Whitehall.
BCG is writing the 10 year plan. It seems that the British state does not have the capability t0 do so. That’s done wonders for morale and the development of talent.
Burnham’s bestie Steve Rotherham is on board and will provide the cover.
Readers may not be aware that the Afghan Taliban have engaged China and Russia to help rebuild Kabul, including introduction of trams. The joke is that Kabul will get a tram before Leeds. Fan.Da.Bi.Do.Zee. Eh?!
Readers may not be aware that independent journalists are investigating the municipal corruption often called Manchesterism. Watch this space.
Staggering
Neoliberalism would be OK if it were just a bit more equal?
I despair.
Thank you, Richard.
Burnham is an empty suit, always has been, but, out of the cabinet, has learnt the value of communications and PR.
He also thinks à rapprochement with the EU is a, if not the, panacea, sufficient to bring back many to the fold and keep Labour around the 30 – 35% mark, enough to secure a majority.
I very much doubt that he is right.
It is my opinion that the UK has been thoroughly colonised and compromised by corporate interests. We are being turned into a test bed for a corporate-controlled state where the population is controlled and managed as just another resource for big business. Hearing that Blackrock and JP Morgan are embedded in our government doesn’t do anything to disuade me.