Although Mr Burnham has come far by taking the credit in Manchester for the achievements largely of others, he does not appear to be entirely stupid. He must look at the example of Liz Truss and realise what would happen to him, in short order, if he got on the wrong side of the bond markets. He, too, could have the lifespan in office of a lettuce, or could put Britain at the mercy of the International Monetary Fund as in 1976, or possibly both. Should he wish to avoid that, he must force himself to face reality.
The choice confronting him is this. He and those around him who, like him, have so far chosen to believe his own publicity, should stop infantilising the electorate and, instead, have an honest, adult conversation with them. The fundamental point is that we cannot continue to fund what Lord Lilley memorably called a “something-for-nothing” society any longer. People must stop being incentivised to claim welfare benefits, which have become a way of life for too many who could work.
The money saved by doing this could be used to fund not just more defence spending, but also tax cuts to create jobs. It would also be a mark of honesty, in this adult discussion, to undo much of the harmful regulation of the workplace imposed by Angela Rayner before her disgrace, and review the realism of the generous level of the minimum wage for those often still living with, and subsidised by, their parents.
Such steps would make Mr Burnham deeply unpopular with his clientele, however well he sought to explain himself: but would win him respect among the far greater number outside that group.
Sadly, he seems to lack the guts for the honest conversation and for the policies. Therefore, come the turn of the year, Britain will still be a shambolic failure, his party will be suicidal, and he will be loathed just as much as his predecessor.
Even some Labour supporters who wanted shot of the hapless Sir Keir Starmer, and have flocked to Andy Burnham, quietly express reservations about the difficulties ahead. Some winced when he refused to take questions from the media after his fatuous devolution speech last Monday. Others note that his promises – such as finding more money for defence without attacking Labour’s benefit-dependent clientele by imposing “crude” welfare cuts – will require some unpleasantness if they are to be kept.
Mr Popularity might all too easily become Mr Unpopularity, as many recent prime ministers have shown.
Few, including some in Labour, would be surprised if by Christmas he were just as unpopular as Sir Keir. There are many reasons. As Mendès France said, gouverner, c’est choisir: to govern is to choose. Can he take the choices required?
As well as keeping his promises on defence and maintaining a generous welfare state, Mr Burnham talks about his desire to renationalise businesses he defines as failing, such as in the water industry. Unless he is preparing to expropriate the assets of shareholders (whose property these companies are), that would incur a huge bill. Then there is his promised massive public housing programme, unquantified thus far and therefore uncosted.
His promises, so far, are inherently paradoxical. He recognises the terrible damage done by some of Rachel Reeves’s policies; at various times he has implied he might reverse her increase in National Insurance contributions, for the very good reason that it is suffocating job creation. He has suggested he would consider lowering business rates for the same reason, and to raise (by an as yet unspecified amount) personal allowances for income tax, to help with the cost of living and provide incentive to help the economy to grow. But how will this be funded?
Here is the paradox: he cannot simply tax the so-called rich to recoup the difference. Such people, the main wealth and job creators in the country, have already been driven abroad in their legions, and now pay tax in other jurisdictions. How many more does he want to lose?
For if he does, it would not just be a question of where the money he needs would come from, it is how he would make up the extra losses to the Exchequer higher taxation would incur. Bridget Phillipson, with what Kemi Badenoch correctly calls her “spiteful” tax on school fees, has given a superb exhibition of how to destroy a sector of the economy by taxing it penally for reasons of ignorant ideology.
Although Mr Burnham has come far by taking the credit in Manchester for the achievements largely of others, he does not appear to be entirely stupid. He must look at the example of Liz Truss and realise what would happen to him, in short order, if he got on the wrong side of the bond markets. He, too, could have the lifespan in office of a lettuce, or could put Britain at the mercy of the International Monetary Fund as in 1976, or possibly both. Should he wish to avoid that, he must force himself to face reality.
The choice confronting him is this. He and those around him who, like him, have so far chosen to believe his own publicity, should stop infantilising the electorate and, instead, have an honest, adult conversation with them. The fundamental point is that we cannot continue to fund what Lord Lilley memorably called a “something-for-nothing” society any longer. People must stop being incentivised to claim welfare benefits, which have become a way of life for too many who could work.
The money saved by doing this could be used to fund not just more defence spending, but also tax cuts to create jobs. It would also be a mark of honesty, in this adult discussion, to undo much of the harmful regulation of the workplace imposed by Angela Rayner before her disgrace, and review the realism of the generous level of the minimum wage for those often still living with, and subsidised by, their parents.
Such steps would make Mr Burnham deeply unpopular with his clientele, however well he sought to explain himself: but would win him respect among the far greater number outside that group.
Sadly, he seems to lack the guts for the honest conversation and for the policies. Therefore, come the turn of the year, Britain will still be a shambolic failure, his party will be suicidal, and he will be loathed just as much as his predecessor.