Dear Mr Burnham, its Bold or Bust

In the last week Andy Burnham, who stands at the precipice of becoming Britain’s next Prime Minister, seemingly ruled out an early general election. Whilst politicians ruling things out certainly doesn’t mean that they are ruled out, it does mean it is not ruled in. A general election is not part of Burnham’s short-term plan. The question remains however, is it part of Burnham’s plan in the medium-term, and should it be. Whilst the answer to the former is one that only Burnham and his Manchester Magic Circle know, the answer to the latter is, unequivocally, yes. 

Burnham finds himself with the keys to number ten firmly in his hands just two years into a five-year parliament. He is the first Prime Minister since perhaps David Cameron or even Tony Blair to bring with him a clear, comprehensive vision. For Cameron it was ‘compassionate conservatism’, for Blair it was ‘new Labour’, for Burnham it is ‘Manchesterism’. Last month I dissected Manchesterism, how it works and why it may work. Burnham is attempting to steer the nostalgic wave that is engulfing British politics into a coherent centre-left narrative and by doing so knocking away the ladder that has allowed Reform to climb into a clear lead in the polls. Yet Burnham argues that this comprehensive plan of change can be achieved within the constraints the 2024 manifesto, a manifesto that rather than offering the bold commitments of Manchesterism instead offered a strange buffet of bland technocracy under the moniker of ‘Change’, in which Labour unnecessarily decided to fall on their own sword and ruled out all mechanisms with which meaningful change could have been realised. Burnham therefore either believes that he can navigate a course through these self-imposed change-limiting shackles and deliver elements of Manchesterism, or he believes those shackles can be bended in the name of change. Neither is true. The bullet that Labour put in both their feet in 2024 was the commitment to not increase income tax, national insurance or VAT. Those bullets are what caused the Starmer government to limp towards unprecedented unpopularity, taxing everything and everybody to avoid a modest increase in income tax, a policy which unsurprisingly upset every interest group going and delivered U-turn after U-turn after U-turn. And Burnham, for all the positivity and momentum surrounding his premiership, will still need to walk with the same bullet-riddled feet if he is to operate within the manifesto, and nothing slows down momentum like bullet-riddled feet. And Burnham cannot ignore the manifesto, for if he does then his prince over the water, quasi-populist credentials which have allowed him to generate the momentum required to sweep the premiership will quickly dissolve into yet another establishment politician who cannot keep his promise, and it doesn’t matter that those manifesto promises were written in somebody else’s ink.

The 2024 manifesto therefore ties Burnham’s hands and puts bullets in his feet. It both impedes the flexibility required to achieve Manchesterism and commits him to the same unpopular fate of the Starmer government. What Burnham needs is a fresh mandate, and not just to free his hands and remove bullet wounds from his feet. Jim Callaghan and Gordon Brown are the two Labour Prime Ministers who failed to win a general election. Both came into power two years into a five-year parliament following the resignation of their unpopular predecessors. Both of their fresh faces delivered a short-term spike in the opinion polls, both made the mistake of not calling a general election, and both were unceremoniously dumped out of Downing Street three years later. Brown made the further mistake of openly speculating on a general election, allowing the media to spin themselves into a frenzy only to chicken out and fall flat. Burnham at least has not made that mistake. History demonstrates that Prime Ministers cannot allow speculation surrounding a general election to build only for it to then fall flat. If an election is in Burnham’s medium-term plan, he has to rule it out now. But he must hold one soon. He will deliver a temporary spike in the polls for his party, and he must capitalise on that in the way that Brown and Callaghan did not. 

Burnham has a unique opportunity to undo all the mistakes made by Labour in 2024. He can, utilising his personal popularity, drag his party up in the opinion polls and capitalise on a desire for change through his semi-nostalgic and quasi-populist message. Burnham could deliver a Labour government that, rather than tying its own hands to achieve power, could actually be elected on what it wants to achieve, and how many Labour governments of the past could claim that. A manifesto of desire and vision rather than compromise and caution. An embracement, rather than a bonfire, of (albeit newfound) principle to achieve power. Feelings of goodwill do not last forever, and in politics they are as rare as they are short-term. Andy Burnham at present is the most popular politician in the country and enjoys a cautious feeling of goodwill. Neither will last. Labour PMs who entered office mid-term have never won an election. Burnham has to be bold if he wants to change that. He has to go to the country on his comprehensive plan of Manchesterism or else his popularity and vision will slowly dribble into the technocratic, timid unpopularity that dogged the Starmer administration and forced it from power in a year and from office in two. If Burnham wants to change the country he has to be bold, or else he will merely be a hiccup on the Labour Party’s downhill trajectory towards oblivion. I do not mean to be sensationalist, but Mr Burnham, it's bold or bust.

Image: Flickr/House of Commons

Licence.

No image changes made.