We need to be better,” the new prime minister told the nation. Well, in at least a few respects, Andy Burnham has already done better.
Without being unduly unkind to his predecessor, Sir Keir Starmer, even the now ex-prime minister might agree that he could have been better at presentation and projecting a sense of purpose for his administration. Indeed, in his twilight days, he himself sometimes pretty much admitted as much.
Undoubtedly, Mr Burnham is a fresh start in that respect. Speaking without notes, sans lectern, in a more modulated voice with a softer accent, the upgrade in style was immediately obvious. The new prime minister has a more confident demeanour, as well he should, and offered some of the vision that has been lacking recently.
There was some substance, too. The idea of a national 10-year plan may not be entirely novel (it was a dismal failure for the Wilson administration 60 years ago), but it is intriguing – and at least has the prospect of being better defined and understood than Sir Keir’s lamentable tangle of missions, priorities, targets and phases.
It signals a certain long-termism, too. Obviously, there was plenty of politico cliche in Mr Burnham’s performance, such as the promise of “new politics”, “common purpose” and “an end to point scoring” (they all say that); but unveiled without any prior hint, and with some drama, was an unequivocal pledge to “end rough sleeping in this country”.
Surprise! Britain managed to do it during the pandemic, and Mr Burnham points to his efforts in Manchester to prove that progress is possible. If achieved (no deadline was mentioned), it will prove to the public that its government can actually get something done. If reproduced elsewhere – and there have been improvements already in areas such as NHS waiting lists and migration – it might help dispel the depressing national conviction that “Britain is broken”.
If we can conquer rough sleeping, why not social care, another priority of Mr Burnham’s? Or reform of social security, and rebuilding the nation’s defences? Or the housing crisis? He didn’t mention climate change, Europe or economic growth in his inaugural address, but it may be presumed that he wishes to attract more investment and further rebuild Britain’s relationship with the EU.
Mr Burnham was wise to pledge allegiance to the fiscal rules, and the signs are that he and his advisers, such as Lord O’Neill, may have found a way to borrow to invest within those structures and without spooking financial markets. He offers “the biggest changes in the last 40 years… a new political model and a new economic model”.
A “circuit-breaker moment” indeed – but it would be irrational, to put it mildly, to think that all the liberalising reforms to the economy made since Margaret Thatcher came to power in 1979 must now be discarded. Mr Burnham does need to be wary of promising a better yesterday.
If former mayor Burnham can be forward-looking and actually get things done, as he did in Greater Manchester, then he deserves to succeed, and he will indeed, as he says, give the nation some much-needed hope. “Vibes”, his critics sneer, is all that Mr Burnham is about, but they may underestimate him – and, in any case, a better national mood would be a welcome change.
To achieve that, like any other leader, he needs a team with him. As his distant predecessor, William Gladstone, famously noted: “The first essential for a prime minister is to be a good butcher.” Thatcher called cabinet reshuffles the “worst job I ever have to do here”. On the evidence of his first cabinet appointments, Mr Burnham, a nice man in most settings, has shown himself quite willing to carve the joint.
During his leadership campaign, such as it was, Mr Burnham talked about his plans for his “top team” and said “you will see it reflects all parts of our party, all communities”. Not all are cooperating with Mr Burnham’s effort at inclusion. A few of Sir Keir’s most loyal colleagues, notably Rachel Reeves, were reportedly offered alternative jobs in cabinet, but rejected them and chose to resign instead.
Most were simply sacked in a purge of the Starmerites – David Lammy, Liz Kendall, Lord Hermer, Peter Kyle – in what one commentator quipped was a “night of the long eyelashes”. As one of the thus dispossessed, Steve Reed, hinted at in his resignation letter, not all will feel that much loyalty to the new leader.
Yet, on their merits, he seems to have exercised sound judgement in making most of the right senior appointments, both in the national interest as well as the more grubby business of managing oversized egos and party factions.
John Healey is an inspired choice for the Treasury. He is just the kind of principled, tough figure needed to steer the Treasury in the right direction, and will now be in a better position to find the money for increased military spending and challenge the “Treasury orthodoxy” he attacked when he quit as defence secretary. But he must also retain the confidence of the markets and the integrity of the fiscal rules – a daunting task.
The new foreign secretary, Ed Miliband, shouldn’t feel too short-changed by his new role, and Shabana Mahmood has succeeded in remaining at the Home Office to finish her immigration and asylum reforms.
On the whole, Mr Burnham has given the Labour government a new lease of life, a renewed sense of purpose, and undertaken some difficult trimming of the old cabinet’s membership. No doubt there will be a bump in the polls. As for completing the biggest changes to British economic and political life since the 1980s… well, it is only day one of the remaining three or so years before the next election. He’s ambitious all right, is Mr Burnham.
