A Story for Burnham

Alastair Campbell insists that the one thing Andy Burnham needs, if and when he becomes Prime Minister, is a story or strategy. Professor James Alexander has just the ticket.

4 min read

The Rest is Politics insists that the one thing Andy Burnham needs, if and when he becomes Prime Minister, is a story or strategy.

Here is Alastair Campbell:

If it is Andy Burnham, his strategy in a way almost writes itself. If you think about what he’s been saying, he’s been saying that our politics is broken, that it’s not working for working people in places like the north of England. And what he’s shown in Manchester relates to this sense of devolution of power. So I think… if I were advising him that’s where I’m starting in terms of devising an overall strategy. It’s about unleashing the potential and talent of people all over this country. And it should mean quite a shake-up in the way Whitehall operates, the way Westminster operates.

That sounds as if Campbell wants Burnham to become a Conservative. This is 90% what Jacob Rees-Mogg would like to hear.

(Unless Campbell means ‘unworking people’ when he says “working people”. And unless Campbell means ‘more spending’ when he says ‘devolution of power’. Which is very likely, given what we know about the old hypocrite.)

But, make no mistake, one can have a story, but then one has the things one does.

Here is my breakdown of Campbell’s advice.

Point 1. Labour has spent too much.

Point 2. Devolution of power = spending less and taxing less. (If it means spending more then it is not devolution. It is increasing centralisation.)

Point 3. Unleashing potential = reversing Starmer’s increased regulation and increased spending.

And yet we are told that Burnham is to the Left of Starmer. Ho hum.

So here is my suggestion about what Burnham’s story should be.

The only hope is that Burnham turns out to be a colourful chameleon who can talk the Corbyn talk (‘politics is broken’,’ ‘for the many not the few’) while reverting to Blair-in-1997 fiscal discipline. Which translates, given the current state of spending: austerity squared.

He can talk Labour nonsense but he must do Conservative things.

Otherwise he is just going to expose the Labour party for the post-McFadden dim-witted spend-irresponsibly thing that it largely appears to be.

My advice to Burnham.

Make George Osborne Chancellor.

Make Dominic Cummings the Head of DOGE.

Keep Shabana Mahmood in place.

Make Peter Mandelson Foreign Secretary, i.e., mock the entire stupid hang-the-hypocrites hypocrisy of the press.

Persuade Richard Ekins, Professor of Law at Oxford, to be Attorney General, and get out of all the old European human rights and conventions and rules.

Appoint Tony Blair Count of the Saxon Shore, to do “whatever it takes” to stop the boats.

Make everyone read Jon Moynihan’s books.

Destroy the triple lock.

Strangle the NHS.

Go on TV every month and make a presentation to the public about Debt and Deficit. Or YouTube, if the BBC insists on spurious ‘balance’.

Reappoint John Healey Minister of Defence.

Make a statement about how COVID-19 and Net Zero were colossal mistakes.

Oh, and a new idea: remove the vote from anyone who has entered the country, legally or not, since 2016. Call them ‘metics’ and grant them the vote, say, after 25 years, by which time they might have a vested interest in the country.

The only hope is that a Labour leader can do the steely, harsh things that the United Kingdom needs a leader to do. Aye, we don’t want, or, rather, you, Campbell, Osborne and friends, don’t want, a British AfD in power. No Reform or Restore for you: well, if so, then we need a leader of a mainstream party who has the jaw, backbone and guts to put through the blunt and brutal Starkey reforms necessary to turn the ship of state round.

If none of this happens, then the “story” will be that Burnham simply compounded the old Starmer errors, and made even the Tories of c. 2020 look good.

By the way, I am sick of this talk of ‘politics is broken’. This is rubbish squared. Politics is fine. It is responsible government that is not yet mended. Brexit was, I take it, the attempt to restore power to government, so we would stop blaming Europe for our failures. One cannot restore a political class in a decade, it seems. Well, let’s keep working at it.

That, then, is a possible story for Burnham: Burnham needs to adopt, on the face of it, a soft Left politics, and, below the surface, what Campbell calls a “hard Right” politics. That is what is needed.

Because I don’t think the British will accept a hard Right politics unless it is carried out by a soft Leftist.

James Alexander is a Professor in the Department of Political Science at Bilkent University in Turkey.

Comments

This week across the site:

Email me alerts for this discussion
Notify of

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

21 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
JXB
JXB
3 months ago

“So I think… if I were advising him that’s where I’m starting in terms of devising an overall strategy. “

Ah yes – the “fatal conceit” that politicians can have enough information to decide best outcome and control the economy to achieve that outcome. Socialist command economy.

It is precisely this policy, regulation of the labour market, regulation of the business and manufacturing practices, market intervention, subsidy to prevent market attrition and/or to pick winners, taxation to redistribute “wealth”, which has led to economic ruination.

Yet tte solution is more of what caused the problem in the first place.

For a fist full of roubles
For a fist full of roubles
3 months ago

If only!

jeepybee
jeepybee
3 months ago

But who the hell is he?! None of us ever heard of him before a month ago!

It’s a total psyop, paying the media to mention his name constantly as if he’s Billy big balls. They pay the competition to get him in the seat…

He’s another nobody paid by someone else to continue importing the turd world, forcing us to ensure the godless masses. But this time it’ll be even worse.

For a fist full of roubles
For a fist full of roubles
3 months ago
Reply to  jeepybee

Extra points for turd world.

JXB
JXB
3 months ago

Omnipresent in cesspits aka “developing nations”.

LadbrokeGrove
LadbrokeGrove
3 months ago
Reply to  jeepybee

Burnham held three government ministerial posts between 2007 and 2010, Chief Secretary to the Treasury for seven months, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sports for more than four months and Secretary of State for Health for eleven months so he’s eminently experienced to become the Messiah.

JXB
JXB
3 months ago
Reply to  LadbrokeGrove

Was it he who left a note for the incoming Tories – “The money’s all gone”? Or similar wording.

Free Lemming
Free Lemming
3 months ago

“By the way, I am sick of this talk of ‘politics is broken’. This is rubbish squared. Politics is fine. It is responsible government that is not yet mended.”

I haven’t heard anyone say ‘politics is broken’, what people say is various form of ‘it is broken’. But government is politics and politics is government. Both represent an ideology and a system – a system that is a manifestation of the political ideology. To have irresponsible government is to have irresponsible politics, an irresponsible ideology, and an irresponsible system. They are entwined at the most fundamental level – to entirely replace one, the other two must also be replaced. So, no, it is not ‘rubbish squared”; politics is part of an ideological system that has been constructed such that nothing works in the way the people want it to work, and cannot work unless the whole thing is torn down.

Arum
Arum
3 months ago
Reply to  Free Lemming

Politicians seem to believe that everything can be made better by more regulation and more legislation. Which is basically what they (the masters of the universe) do. They have no idea how to bring about economic growth and many of them don’t even think that is important. Something is definitely broken.

JXB
JXB
3 months ago
Reply to  Arum

The fatal conceit.

JXB
JXB
3 months ago
Reply to  Free Lemming

Prior to the 20th Century when Government participation in the economy was minimal, politicians could politick and run Government and leave the economy to the private sector, with no need to know about running a business.

Nowadays, with intense Government intrusion in the economy, politicians can no longer just politick, they need to be savvy business orientated people. They are not.

Government has only one legitimate function: protect the people – from internal and external threats. It is not its legitimate function to provide for the people.

But that is precisely what it has increasingly done with an expanding welfare-state and the inevitable expansion of Government to administer it, and increased Government intervention in the economy to direct it, to tax and fund it.

And failed in its only legitimate duty.

We now have Government running the economy – people who know nothing about market economics or business, directing the private sector to operate in the interests of the State (that’s Fascist economic model by the by) to fund Government activities.

Politicians who know nothing about business are telling businesses how they must operate.

Command economies always fail.

Jack the dog
Jack the dog
3 months ago

Your last paragraph nails it.

But it ain’t gonna be Burn’em.

BigRob
BigRob
3 months ago

Rather than ditching the triple lock (anyone trying to live only on the state pension is well below poverty) I think the rules on entitlement to state pension need reforming. By increments the rules have changed so that a vast number of people (some fairly recent arrivals at that) qualify for state pension without ever having contributed. I know the state pension is a “Ponzi” scheme and would like to see, eventually that most people depend on good, well financed workplace pension schemes and for state pensions only as a safety net. But I think the entitlement numbers are the problem rather than what is, still a relatively meagre pension.

JXB
JXB
3 months ago
Reply to  BigRob

The State pension has to be paid out if the current account – by the tax payer via the Treasury.

The welfare-state and other Government spending is so out of control, taxes cannot cover it and more and more borrowing is needed.

Your point about the inrush of foreign snouts in the welfare trough is valid, but.

The problem with funding the State pension was understood back in the late 1950s. When introduced in 1948, most people died before reaching pension-age, or didn’t survive more than five or six years to collect it. However as life expectancy increased, more were reaching retirement age and surviving longer.

1961 to 1975 Graduated Pension contribution was introduced as an add-on to NIC. It soon became clear this was inadequate and was replaced by SERPS. In the 1980s the Thatcher Government introduced SERPS Opt-out, whereby part of the NIC collected could be diverted to a private pension of choice to be used as a supplement to the State pension instead of SERPS – to relieve the burden on the Treasury.

Labour scrapped this after 1997.

What this means is today’s pensioners certainly were aware of the problems back in… Read more »

BigRob
BigRob
3 months ago
Reply to  JXB

I am not moaning at all. I am stating that the current pension on its own is derisory and for those who depend solely on it to survive means they are in dire straits. I am lucky having worked all my life since I left school at 15 years of age I have managed to build up workplace pensions that are adequate for my needs but not everyone has been so lucky. I am aware of the problems you state and know full well it is (under)funded by current tax payers which is why I termed it a ‘Ponzi Scheme’. The triple lock would be eminently affordable for the country if only those who should qualify for the full state pension were the only ones who recieved it. I also think it more than a bit rich that non ‘public servants’ take a hit re pension whilst the gold plated schemes for loval gov’t etc. remain in place. There is a great article on the triple lock which I will dig out and share if I can find it. Cheers!

JXB
JXB
3 months ago
Reply to  BigRob

Didn’t say you were but plenty are.

“… those who depend solely on it to survive means they are in dire straits.”

Didn’t they know they would get old? They had their whole life to provide for themselves. Why didn’t they?

My Victorian grandparents – grandad was a coal miner – “put a bit by” each week for their old age as State pensions weren’t a thing back then.

Somebody
Somebody
3 months ago

Hmm, that’s not going to happen.
The story of the left is always the same. To be Robin Hood, to take from the rich (by definition undeserving exploitative b*******) and give to the poor (by definition hard done by paragons of love & virtue).
The reality of life and economies is very different.
The idea that the North can be revitalised by investing government money is a mirage. What is needed is to unshackle and encourage industry and business throughout this land. Not shut down whole industries with mad energy policies – the oil industry in Aberdeen, the Steel Industry, the Fishing Industry, the Car Industry. Not seek to centrally control the price of everything. Not hike the minimum wage so youngsters are forced onto the scrap heap.
Stop meddling, get the fat bloated government out of the people’s way.

JXB
JXB
3 months ago
Reply to  Somebody

Robbing selective Peter to pay collective Paul.

The North was devastated because the old industries were run by the State. They lacked private investment, could not modernise, could not increase labour productivity as that would mean reducing the work-force… strike brothers!

The process of creative destruction was bot possible, because no innovation or new technology could compete with businesses which could not go bankrupt, were non-contestable State monopolies.

In the end they could not compete globally and just ate up money out of the Treasury, and could not be sustained. They were closed down with nothing to replace them – destruction without the creative part.

Matt Dalby
Matt Dalby
3 months ago

At the minute the only story Burnham seems to have is “I’m not Starmer”.

Gezza England
Gezza England
3 months ago
Reply to  Matt Dalby

He may be less of a robot than Starmer but no less vacuous when it comes to policies.

JXB
JXB
3 months ago
Reply to  Matt Dalby

Consistent with the only story Labour had in 2024, we are not the Tories.

Thank you for reading. Please help us keep the Daily Sceptic going by becoming a donor.