Being a skilled communicator is not enough. The incoming prime minister needs a clearer political direction
Daily Telegraph 19/07/26
There is something peculiar about the coronation of Andy Burnham.
It is not just that his ascension is without historical parallel. Or that it has occurred against the backdrop of a prime minister falling within two years after winning the third-largest majority in over a century. It is that we are about to get a prime minister and yet know very little about what we are getting.
To be fair to Burnham, he did give a speech early on returning to Westminster. He has talked about rolling back “40 years of Thatcherism”. We hear much about “Manchesterism”. There’s a promise for “growth in every postcode”. However, journalists didn’t get the chance to ask him questions. And there’s not much in the way of detail.
Clive Lewis – one of his earliest public supporters – has criticised U-turns made by Burnham. Positions on Waspi, rejoining the EU, immigration and the fiscal rules were altered during the Makerfield by-election.
Talk of a split between advocates of “Right Burnhamism” and advocates of “Left Burnhamism” have emerged. Both former ministers Josh Simons (of the party’s Right) and Miatta Fahnbulleh (of the party’s soft Left) have been tasked with devising policy for the incoming regime. Both are highly cerebral figures with PhDs and think tank experience.
Both are close to Burnham. Fahnbulleh resigned her job as part of the coup while Simons resigned his Makerfield seat. Yet camps aligned to both figures have vehemently disagreed over policy ideas. If two camps at the core of the Burnham project simply cannot agree on the intellectual and political direction, how are voters meant to have a clue what to expect?
Yet the division between “Left Burnhamism” and “Right Burnhamism” can be seen at the top of the incoming government too.
Louise Haigh is reportedly likely to be Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster – occupying a similar role to Oliver Letwin, David Lidington, Steve Barclay and, of course, Darren Jones.
Anneliese Midgley – once deputy chief of staff to Jeremy Corbyn – is also likely to be a key to the Burnham regime. An effective power broker, she may be his PPS or the new chief whip (presumably he will U-turn on abolishing the whip system).
But who else is going to be in this government? James Purnell. The former work and pensions secretary who resigned over Gordon Brown’s leadership in 2009 is coming back to be Burnham’s Chief of Staff.
Burnham has described Purnell as the “clearest political thinker” he knows. Both are very close friends and former flatmates. Both SpAds in the Tony Blair era, the two men’s firm friendship predates entering parliament.
Purnell is a staunch Blairite. He was so Blairite that he left government after arguing that Brown needed to be firmer and clearer on deficit reduction (a position which Burnham agreed with only to then say “we shouldn’t be in hoc to the bond markets” 16 years later).
And we see this with the question of the chancellor of the Exchequer. We still do not really know who it is. At the moment, it appears Shabana Mahmood is the favourite.
Yet Mahmood has described herself as a “fiscal conservative” who hails from the party’s traditional Right. How is this consistent with a leftward turn? Rachael Maskell – one of Burnham’s earliest supporters – has publicly criticised a possible Mahmood chancellorship.
Maskell’s favoured choice is Ed Miliband. That’s no surprise – the previous consensus was Miliband was heading for No 11. But he has his own agenda: his lesson from his 2015 defeat was that he was insufficiently radical – and he has a strong following among the party’s Left. But many in Burnham’s camp – and the wider business community – are strongly opposed to such a move.
That there appears to be indecision over the identity of the chancellor is one thing. The fact that two figures with ideologically contradictory approaches could be seriously considered for such a job is baffling.
In truth, these are not mere teething problems. Rather, they reflect contradictions at the heart of Burnham’s political identity. Is he the man whose career advanced under the patronage of New Labour’s Tessa Jowell and David Blunkett? The self-described “small-c conservative” with traditional views on IVF and recognising marriage in the tax system?
Or is he the man who stayed out of the coup against Corbyn and then fled to Greater Manchester? Who called for no recourse to public funds to be scrapped, for gender self-ID, and a universal basic income?
There are many strengths to Burnham which his detractors are foolish to ignore. Like Boris Johnson, he is a Heineken politician – reaching all parts of Labour’s voter coalition, Green voters, Lib Dem voters and even some Tory and Reform voters.
Comments
Post a Comment