There is a fault-line in the workings of our parliamentary democracy.
No, it is not that the ruling party can change who is prime minister without a general election. That has become almost routine – and besides, an election is won by the accumulation of individual MPs, not in the name of a single, presidential-style candidate.
The built-in difficulty is that they become eligible to be prime minister by being elected by their party – often pandering to its whims or its factions – but in office, they must govern for the whole country.
Indeed, the best prime ministers of my time – Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair – challenged the conventional shibboleths of their party. Thatcher built a cult of her own, stretching from the Carlton Club to blue collar workers. Blair declared we are “all in this together” and welcomed all into his big tent, including “the filthy rich… provided they pay their taxes”, in Peter Mandelson’s words.
It now looks like Andy Burnham will avoid a leadership contest – a pointless circuit of hustings with activists and interviewers trying to catch him out on the finer points of party doctrine. With his main rival Wes Streeting out of the race, Burnham will take the helm, perhaps earlier than he hoped, in the second half of July.
Speaking for the nation in microcosm, the voters of Makerfield gave their verdict with Burnham’s stonking overall majority. They want Burnham now, as he is. Not Starmer, not Farage. The Labour Party created the circumstances for his victory not least because they hope he may save their political skins in future. But it is Andy Burnham’s personal triumph – and mandate.
For all his talk of a “mandate”, Starmer never had one. The Conservatives lost the last election and the quirks of first past the post delivered a disproportionate victory to the Labour Party.
“Let Burnham be Burnham” is surely a risk – as many will joke that we don’t know who is celebrating at the bar of the last chance saloon: the Blairite, the Brownite, the Cobynite or the Mayor of Manchesterism.
Ideological flexibility and the ability to appeal across the political spectrum is exactly what is needed to pull this country out of its economic slough. Unlike Starmer’s divisive mantra that all he cared about was “working people”, Burnham’s “business-friendly socialism” is not much different from Wes Streeting’s “progressive capitalism”.
From the mills onward, Manchesterism has always been about – often abrasive – partnerships between the public and private sectors. Burnham’s famous yellow Bee Network buses are actually privately owned, under contract to local government.
Starmer made promises to pressure groups such as the Waspi women and Esther Rantzen on assisted dying which he could not keep. His clumsy – but rapid – U-turn on the Waspis showed the danger of seeking popularity in the hustings hall.
In the end, though, Burnham has signalled that he is not going to be bound by his past comments, or bail out every victim group that makes demands of him. His famous campaign for the victims of Hillsborough was about securing justice – a proper sphere for any politician, not compensation.
Of course, we don’t know which Burnham we are going to get. His personal preoccupations – devolution and trying to rebalance investment to the North – are long-term and reasonable from the first Northern English Prime Minister since Harold Wilson.
It is understandable – and right – that he has indicated that he will largely stand by Starmer’s 2024 manifesto. But, as Burnham’s ex-Goldman Sachs advisor Lord Jim O’Neill points out, there is room for interpretation within the “fiscal rules”. There are nettles which he could grasp in his first flush, such as rebalancing defence investment and welfare.
Breaking the triple lock on pensions is an obvious target, which could be coupled with other reviews more provocative to the Labour base. His commitment to “reindustrialisation” could be business-friendly, in terms of tax changes and incentives.
Equally, reindustrialisation could mean disastrous dirigisme and state corporatism. It could all go wrong should Burnham install Ed Miliband as Rachel Reeves’s replacement. My guess is that he will go for a more centrist figure. Wes Streeting will certainly be key, having halted his anti-Starmer stalking horse activities to support Burnham.
One of the first tests for Burnham will be how many of those close allies now jostling for favours – Lucy Powell, Louise Haig, etc – he may have to disappoint, as he tries to build the most balanced and competent cabinet. That said, there are some obviously expendable Starmer stooges ready to be dispatched.
My guess is that Burnham will surprise with his policies. He is a political child of New Labour, whose first sponsor in politics was the ultra-Blairite Tessa Jowell. Lessons have been learnt since then, but Burnham has never been a born-again rejectionist of the governments in which he served – and which secured election three times in a row.
He has warned repeatedly that this is Labour’s – and perhaps the country’s – last chance to see off Reform. He needs to bring the country together and work with all sectors of society. The alternative, he says, is darkness. The UK’s parliamentary system has thrown the nation a lifeline. Labour’s soft left must not stop Andy Burnham grasping it.
Hence then, the article about unknowable burnham is exactly who the uk needs to drag it out of the mire was published today ( ) and is available on inews ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Unknowable Burnham is exactly who the UK needs to drag it out of the mire )
Also on site :
- Paris Fashion Week Men’s Cheat Sheet: Spring/Summer 2027
- Disney+ & A24 UK Teaming For First Time On Clem Garritty Comedy-Drama About Siblings Whose Father Is Accused Of Murder
- Insilico Medicine And SK Biopharmaceuticals Achieved AI-powered Drug Discovery Collaboration Worth Up to 2.5 Billion for Neuroimmune Disorders