“I’m just an ordinary Northern bloke” doesn’t exactly qualify him to lead a country of 70m people and the 6th richest country in the world (and falling). Paul is dead right that slick comms won’t cut it anymore and it’s about the vision and message on how to kickstart growth. We need something very radical with either huge benefits cuts to finance tax cuts or massive spending financed through even higher borrowing. Increasing taxes won’t lead to growth.
I was at a pub quiz last week and Burnham’s name came up as an answer to current affairs and the whole pub booed. Loudly. Clearly I live in the south but the message here is the country has to be governed as whole not for a small group of leftie mates oop north or on Labour back benches. Interesting how Labour is not just happy to divide us on race grounds but on where we come from too.
One more thing I mention on a positive note. I worked in Victoria a few years ago. I had the absolute pleasure of bumping in to the late Frank Field, we chatted for 10 mins or so. There was a man of integrity in my view.
On the contrary. Most normal people have already had enough of faux, unelected Burnham, whose geography is so bad he thinks Manchester is in the North of England.
But Iris, you and I have debated before and you are definitely an anti-Labour lady with all due respect. So you'd obviously have an inherent dislike to any Labour leader.
I didn't mean to describe Mr Garner as 'abnormal' to be honest - and had I realised he was so sensitive I'd have used other words.
I think what I really meant was Mr/Mrs Average voter would not boo Mr Burnham as he's only been in the job a little over a week and most of them have not got to know him as yet.
Generally, there's a 'benefit of the doubt' attitude towards new leaders until they've become properly lodged in the public consciousness.
That was why Mr Garner's pub anecdote didn't really ring true for me. Unless it was his local tory social club!
(And Manchester is definitely north of the Thames - so it's north in my book!)
I find that insulting. You’re saying I am not normal in effect and also that I am a Tory. You don’t even know me, or the pub so your comment is such a sweeping biased statement it is arrogant.
I’ll say one more thing Karl and then I will leave it. I say it so you know what others think. I’m happy to have a different opinion and for you to have yours. But Labour if they had anything about them should listen. But I doubt it. You know what the really sad thing about what I call ‘modern Labour’? The sheer lack of integrity and dishonesty. This was something that one would normally associate with Tories. But Labour are just as bad now if not worse. Tony Benn, you may not agreed with him but was honourable. Even Corbyn, too left for me, but at least he was honest about what he was. I see this Labour incarnation as dishonest, all slick media and word salad. But dishonest nonetheless.
I'd have agreed with Tony Benn, and did agree with Jeremy Corbyn, on many economic issues, but I wouldn't agree with either of them on matters of defence and most foreign policy issues.
Benn was right to oppose the EEC/EU, but on the minus side, he wanted us to give up our nuclear weapons and to concede the Falklands to the invading Argentinians.
Corbyn also wants to give up our nuclear weapons and seems to avoid making any denunciation of Hamas while seeming to want Israel not to exist.
So I couldn't back those two all the way frankly.
But what is it, in your opinion, that has fundamentally changed about Labour?
Corbyn was a marginal figure in the Parliamentary party until he was unexpectedly elected leader in 2015 and then returned to being a marginal figure after the 2019 disaster. So his period of leadership was an historical anomaly rather than the norm in any sense.
Similarly with Benn. He was never party leader, although he came close to being elected deputy in 1981. But the very left-wing political positions he came to adopt from the early-1970s onwards were not the mainstream Labour policies of the day.
I'd suggest that Andy Burnham is far closer to what has been Labour's traditional mainstream than either of those two. If it's the Labour tradition that you admire, isn't Burnham politically closer to the likes of Blair, Wilson, Attlee etc than either Benn or Corbyn are?
Paul, a really good article. Bob Crow's comment cuts to the chase. Our lives are put on hold while policy decisions are made, delayed and shelved. The need for certainty, and consistency is paramount now - preceding decades have however been peppered with the mantra for the need for 'change' (in the end meaning nothing). You're also right when you say Andy Burnham needs to deliver sooner rather than later.
On a personal note finally. I'm new to Substack and would like to at least try to write something on my own site. I would like to write a trial article on a topic related to yours. Is it ok if I reference your article in it? I'll obviously refer to it properly with a link. Cheers.
I would love to believe that Burnham will deliver on the promises he made to the people of Makerfield. Your analysis is right, all the soundbites and slick PR we’re getting now may produce a temporary poll bounce, but realistically count for jack. What he needs to do will never fly with the Labour Party. As Pat McFadden let on, all they want to do is tax those working more so they can give more to those who don’t so they can feel good about themselves. The fundamentals in this country are broken and only a radical and to be honest, painful, rewiring from the ground up is going to work. There are no easy answers left. If there were, what passes for our political elite would have grabbed at them. Right now, I increasingly try not to think about the future as it looks darker than ever before.
Always an accurate evaluation Paul. I don’t believe he has the courage but remain optimistic. All I see at the moment is Russel Kane (which is worth checking out) and a man who acts like a Councillor not the leader of our country.
Agreed. Inadequate and actually not really necessary. How you run the country is not dependent on where you run it from. This reminds me of the EU once in a while going to Strasbourg to run things instead of Brussels. Expensive and pointless.
Sir John Glubb wrote a natty little essay ( 26 pages in 1977) called the "The Fate of Empires" - a few of us ( thanks to @Niall Warry) think we've hit this stage in our nations decline:
The Age of Decadence. Decadence is marked by:
Defensiveness
Pessimism
Materialism
Frivolity
An influx of foreigners
The Welfare State
A weakening of religion.
further "Decadence" is due to:
Too long a period of wealth and power
Selfishness
Love of money
The loss of a sense of duty.
I would commend folks to read this - not so much for an answer - as Paul writes, we're all dead in the long run - but it at least provides us a framework for understanding the terminal predicament we're all in.
You are 100 per cent right in what you advocate for, but Andy Burnham has only been in office just over a week and the man's doing his absolute best.
Like you Paul, I also want a social democratic government that delivers economic justice and gives us a country that is well-governed, safe, ordered, and cohesive.
All we can do is take every opportunity to push this agenda forward.
" A country that is well-governed, safe, ordered and cohesive"- for the people at large at least, I would think that is a given, is it not?
What that means in reality, and how it is delivered is the agenda. You would need to expand in detail on that Mr Stewart for those words to mean anything.
A social-democratic country, which means a mixed economy with a strong and fully accountable public sector as the essential infrastructure for a thriving and properly regulated private sector.
It's the best combination of socialism and capitalism.
So nationalise the essential utilities and support UK manufacturers to grow and thrive.
Karl -yes- a mixed economy- strong FULLY ACCOUNTABLE public sector - properly regulated private sector. I would add to that a liberated entrepreneurial community -- based sector to deliver community services, and choice with responsibility to be given back to families and individuals. How would our present political structure deliver those aspirations? Not, I would suggest through "isms". Perhaps Paul would have a view?
Andy Burnham is just keir starmer with personality, a weathercock , he is just following in the footsteps of previous PMs who only aim is to be PM and sod the consequences of thier inaction.
This wont change and we will just spend the rest of our lives complaining about how politicians are empty weathercocks who just want the fame and status of being PM .
Very good article. As ever, Paul you live in the real world whilst those in power in The Labour Party appear to live in the Land of Platitudes. Headlines and wish lists are no longer believable or good enough. Delivery is everything and the patience of people in the country is running very thin.
Paul is right, of course. But the steps our new PM needs to take require courage - to face down his backbenchers and that part of the country in thrall to the Daily Mail and GB News. Sadly, if Kemi Badenoch is right in calling Burnham a people-pleaser, he won’t do it. A pity, since he has the power now and , briefly, the opportunity.
My point, perhaps poorly made, was simply that some media outlets, and their viewers and readers, will be disinclined to give the PM any time, or to cut him any slack if (for example) he has the courage to remove the triple lock.
He doesn’t deserve any time at all. And he ain’t got it from me. If he won a general election on his ‘new’ policies then fair enough. To me he’s forced himself on a country that didn’t vote for him. It is different from the Tories in two ways. Firstly he wasn’t even an MP in 2024, secondly some of his mooted policies are NOT what was put forward in 2024. Feels like a con. Win a GE gain some slack. Until then. None from me.
So we have the highest taxation level since wartime which is what is crippling business and debt running at near 100% of GDP and your answer is for Government to spend more thereby either raise taxes or borrow more?
Do you realise how ridiculous that is as a solution? The definition of madness is doing the same and expecting a different outcome.
We’re about to go through another BLM farce because of Arday’s race and rage baiting friends so sorting anything else out is never going to happen whist this shite hits the fan!
The Government trying to spend its way out of a problem is what has got us here. Politicians are useless at spending money where it needs to be spent. Keynesian economics are dead.
We need to reduce unnecessary regulation, reduce the size of the Civil Service and thereby reduce the size of the State.
No other pratting about at the edges is going to work.
I respectfully disagree. When individuals and businesses are tightening their belts and the economy is flatlining, it is the government's job to lean against market logic and to spend in order to stimulate economic activity. Else we will be waiting a very long time for it to happen.
Why are individuals and businesses tightening their belts? Mostly because of the highest tax burden since the war and the debt repayment costs on a debt pile that is approaching 100% of GDP.
So the answer to this is for the Government to spend more? How are they going to spend more without either raising taxes or increasing borrowing?
It makes no sense. The issue we have is that Government are the problem and adding to the tax burden or the debt pile isn't going to help growth one little bit.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome. One thing is clear Paul is that you have your head screwed on the right way, so what you think it will help is beyond me.
Yep. And I will give you Burnham’s answer to the immigration problem …
Oh, there’s a blank space. Because he’s said nothing. Man up And-eh.
He already on borrowed time from me because I thoroughly question his dodgy mandate.
“I’m just an ordinary Northern bloke” doesn’t exactly qualify him to lead a country of 70m people and the 6th richest country in the world (and falling). Paul is dead right that slick comms won’t cut it anymore and it’s about the vision and message on how to kickstart growth. We need something very radical with either huge benefits cuts to finance tax cuts or massive spending financed through even higher borrowing. Increasing taxes won’t lead to growth.
I was at a pub quiz last week and Burnham’s name came up as an answer to current affairs and the whole pub booed. Loudly. Clearly I live in the south but the message here is the country has to be governed as whole not for a small group of leftie mates oop north or on Labour back benches. Interesting how Labour is not just happy to divide us on race grounds but on where we come from too.
Must have been an ultra tory pub, I doubt normal people would boo Andy Burnham.
One more thing I mention on a positive note. I worked in Victoria a few years ago. I had the absolute pleasure of bumping in to the late Frank Field, we chatted for 10 mins or so. There was a man of integrity in my view.
On the contrary. Most normal people have already had enough of faux, unelected Burnham, whose geography is so bad he thinks Manchester is in the North of England.
But Iris, you and I have debated before and you are definitely an anti-Labour lady with all due respect. So you'd obviously have an inherent dislike to any Labour leader.
I didn't mean to describe Mr Garner as 'abnormal' to be honest - and had I realised he was so sensitive I'd have used other words.
I think what I really meant was Mr/Mrs Average voter would not boo Mr Burnham as he's only been in the job a little over a week and most of them have not got to know him as yet.
Generally, there's a 'benefit of the doubt' attitude towards new leaders until they've become properly lodged in the public consciousness.
That was why Mr Garner's pub anecdote didn't really ring true for me. Unless it was his local tory social club!
(And Manchester is definitely north of the Thames - so it's north in my book!)
I find that insulting. You’re saying I am not normal in effect and also that I am a Tory. You don’t even know me, or the pub so your comment is such a sweeping biased statement it is arrogant.
I don't know you it's true.
But I do get the sense you're very sensitive.
Climb down off your high tory horse mate!
I’ll say one more thing Karl and then I will leave it. I say it so you know what others think. I’m happy to have a different opinion and for you to have yours. But Labour if they had anything about them should listen. But I doubt it. You know what the really sad thing about what I call ‘modern Labour’? The sheer lack of integrity and dishonesty. This was something that one would normally associate with Tories. But Labour are just as bad now if not worse. Tony Benn, you may not agreed with him but was honourable. Even Corbyn, too left for me, but at least he was honest about what he was. I see this Labour incarnation as dishonest, all slick media and word salad. But dishonest nonetheless.
I'd have agreed with Tony Benn, and did agree with Jeremy Corbyn, on many economic issues, but I wouldn't agree with either of them on matters of defence and most foreign policy issues.
Benn was right to oppose the EEC/EU, but on the minus side, he wanted us to give up our nuclear weapons and to concede the Falklands to the invading Argentinians.
Corbyn also wants to give up our nuclear weapons and seems to avoid making any denunciation of Hamas while seeming to want Israel not to exist.
So I couldn't back those two all the way frankly.
But what is it, in your opinion, that has fundamentally changed about Labour?
Corbyn was a marginal figure in the Parliamentary party until he was unexpectedly elected leader in 2015 and then returned to being a marginal figure after the 2019 disaster. So his period of leadership was an historical anomaly rather than the norm in any sense.
Similarly with Benn. He was never party leader, although he came close to being elected deputy in 1981. But the very left-wing political positions he came to adopt from the early-1970s onwards were not the mainstream Labour policies of the day.
I'd suggest that Andy Burnham is far closer to what has been Labour's traditional mainstream than either of those two. If it's the Labour tradition that you admire, isn't Burnham politically closer to the likes of Blair, Wilson, Attlee etc than either Benn or Corbyn are?
Paul, a really good article. Bob Crow's comment cuts to the chase. Our lives are put on hold while policy decisions are made, delayed and shelved. The need for certainty, and consistency is paramount now - preceding decades have however been peppered with the mantra for the need for 'change' (in the end meaning nothing). You're also right when you say Andy Burnham needs to deliver sooner rather than later.
On a personal note finally. I'm new to Substack and would like to at least try to write something on my own site. I would like to write a trial article on a topic related to yours. Is it ok if I reference your article in it? I'll obviously refer to it properly with a link. Cheers.
Yes, of course, Mick.
I would love to believe that Burnham will deliver on the promises he made to the people of Makerfield. Your analysis is right, all the soundbites and slick PR we’re getting now may produce a temporary poll bounce, but realistically count for jack. What he needs to do will never fly with the Labour Party. As Pat McFadden let on, all they want to do is tax those working more so they can give more to those who don’t so they can feel good about themselves. The fundamentals in this country are broken and only a radical and to be honest, painful, rewiring from the ground up is going to work. There are no easy answers left. If there were, what passes for our political elite would have grabbed at them. Right now, I increasingly try not to think about the future as it looks darker than ever before.
Always an accurate evaluation Paul. I don’t believe he has the courage but remain optimistic. All I see at the moment is Russel Kane (which is worth checking out) and a man who acts like a Councillor not the leader of our country.
Agreed. Inadequate and actually not really necessary. How you run the country is not dependent on where you run it from. This reminds me of the EU once in a while going to Strasbourg to run things instead of Brussels. Expensive and pointless.
The country needs a shift in paradigm, not parameters.
However I'm not yet sure that the country has suffered sufficiently to end its predilection for voting for parameter fiddlers.
Sir John Glubb wrote a natty little essay ( 26 pages in 1977) called the "The Fate of Empires" - a few of us ( thanks to @Niall Warry) think we've hit this stage in our nations decline:
The Age of Decadence. Decadence is marked by:
Defensiveness
Pessimism
Materialism
Frivolity
An influx of foreigners
The Welfare State
A weakening of religion.
further "Decadence" is due to:
Too long a period of wealth and power
Selfishness
Love of money
The loss of a sense of duty.
I would commend folks to read this - not so much for an answer - as Paul writes, we're all dead in the long run - but it at least provides us a framework for understanding the terminal predicament we're all in.
You are 100 per cent right in what you advocate for, but Andy Burnham has only been in office just over a week and the man's doing his absolute best.
Like you Paul, I also want a social democratic government that delivers economic justice and gives us a country that is well-governed, safe, ordered, and cohesive.
All we can do is take every opportunity to push this agenda forward.
" A country that is well-governed, safe, ordered and cohesive"- for the people at large at least, I would think that is a given, is it not?
What that means in reality, and how it is delivered is the agenda. You would need to expand in detail on that Mr Stewart for those words to mean anything.
A social-democratic country, which means a mixed economy with a strong and fully accountable public sector as the essential infrastructure for a thriving and properly regulated private sector.
It's the best combination of socialism and capitalism.
So nationalise the essential utilities and support UK manufacturers to grow and thrive.
That's the social-democratic vision.
Karl -yes- a mixed economy- strong FULLY ACCOUNTABLE public sector - properly regulated private sector. I would add to that a liberated entrepreneurial community -- based sector to deliver community services, and choice with responsibility to be given back to families and individuals. How would our present political structure deliver those aspirations? Not, I would suggest through "isms". Perhaps Paul would have a view?
Hi ya Paul 👋
Andy Burnham is just keir starmer with personality, a weathercock , he is just following in the footsteps of previous PMs who only aim is to be PM and sod the consequences of thier inaction.
This wont change and we will just spend the rest of our lives complaining about how politicians are empty weathercocks who just want the fame and status of being PM .
Have a lovely week Paul and other readers.
Very good article. As ever, Paul you live in the real world whilst those in power in The Labour Party appear to live in the Land of Platitudes. Headlines and wish lists are no longer believable or good enough. Delivery is everything and the patience of people in the country is running very thin.
Paul is right, of course. But the steps our new PM needs to take require courage - to face down his backbenchers and that part of the country in thrall to the Daily Mail and GB News. Sadly, if Kemi Badenoch is right in calling Burnham a people-pleaser, he won’t do it. A pity, since he has the power now and , briefly, the opportunity.
How patronising. We aren’t in thrall to GB News or the Daily Mail thank you. You only have to walk through any town centre to be radicalised.
My point, perhaps poorly made, was simply that some media outlets, and their viewers and readers, will be disinclined to give the PM any time, or to cut him any slack if (for example) he has the courage to remove the triple lock.
He doesn’t deserve any time at all. And he ain’t got it from me. If he won a general election on his ‘new’ policies then fair enough. To me he’s forced himself on a country that didn’t vote for him. It is different from the Tories in two ways. Firstly he wasn’t even an MP in 2024, secondly some of his mooted policies are NOT what was put forward in 2024. Feels like a con. Win a GE gain some slack. Until then. None from me.
What precisely do you mean by "economic justice"?
Broadly, a more redistributive economy, and one not disfigured by hideous income and wealth inequality.
As our Gini coefficient is relatively low and in line with European majors, the only path would be to move to a Scandinavian model. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gini-coefficient-wb?tab=line&country=BRA%7EZAF%7ECHN%7EUSA%7EGBR%7EZWE%7ERWA%7EDEU%7EFRA%7EFIN%7ENOR&survey_comparability=no_spells
So we have the highest taxation level since wartime which is what is crippling business and debt running at near 100% of GDP and your answer is for Government to spend more thereby either raise taxes or borrow more?
Do you realise how ridiculous that is as a solution? The definition of madness is doing the same and expecting a different outcome.
We’re about to go through another BLM farce because of Arday’s race and rage baiting friends so sorting anything else out is never going to happen whist this shite hits the fan!
There’s nothing more certain, that and extortionate taxes…. So glad I’m in my twilight years but I fear for the indigenous children that follow….
The Government trying to spend its way out of a problem is what has got us here. Politicians are useless at spending money where it needs to be spent. Keynesian economics are dead.
We need to reduce unnecessary regulation, reduce the size of the Civil Service and thereby reduce the size of the State.
No other pratting about at the edges is going to work.
I respectfully disagree. When individuals and businesses are tightening their belts and the economy is flatlining, it is the government's job to lean against market logic and to spend in order to stimulate economic activity. Else we will be waiting a very long time for it to happen.
Why are individuals and businesses tightening their belts? Mostly because of the highest tax burden since the war and the debt repayment costs on a debt pile that is approaching 100% of GDP.
So the answer to this is for the Government to spend more? How are they going to spend more without either raising taxes or increasing borrowing?
It makes no sense. The issue we have is that Government are the problem and adding to the tax burden or the debt pile isn't going to help growth one little bit.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome. One thing is clear Paul is that you have your head screwed on the right way, so what you think it will help is beyond me.