Andy Burnham has been accused of wanting to “shuffle power between politicians” as he asks for 10 years to transform Britain’s economy by devolving power to the regions, despite having no mandate for such a plan. The Telegraph has more.
Andy Burnham will set out a 10-year plan to transform the economy as he prepares to enter Downing Street.
In a sign he intends to fight at least two elections as Prime Minister, Burnham will argue on Monday that he needs a decade to overhaul Britain, strip power from Whitehall and deliver “good growth in every postcode”.
He will lay out plans for a “No. 10 North”, moving part of his operation outside Westminster to push through a radical programme of English devolution, transferring decisions over spending from mandarins in London to powerful regional mayors.
In his first major speech since returning to Parliament in this month’s Makerfield by-election, Burnham will commit to greater state control of Britain’s energy and water supplies.
He will also pledge a new programme of council house building and infrastructure projects outside the South-East as part of efforts to “lift Britain back up to where it should be”.
Opposition parties, however, accused Burnham of failing to provide details of how he would help working families or defend the country, and warned he was simply seeking to “shuffle power between politicians”.
Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, called for him to go to Parliament and set out his priorities as a matter of urgency.
In May, Sir Keir Starmer spoke of his own hopes to lead a “10-year project of renewal”, causing derision as support for the Prime Minister among the Labour Party melted away.
There had been speculation that Burnham might call an early election to secure a mandate for his reforms, given that he did not stand in the 2024 General Election. However, allies played down the prospect on Sunday, saying the public did not want a poll.
Speaking in Manchester on Monday morning, Burnham will pledge to “give Britain the circuit-breaker it needs” after years of decline.
He will vow to “change politics to make it work for us”, admitting that he – a minister under Gordon Brown – and others in his generation of politicians must take responsibility for the loss of public trust.
Worth reading in full.
Stop Press: In his speech, Burnham unveiled plans to take Britain back to the 1970s with state intervention in the markets and a mass social housing programme. From the Telegraph:
The former mayor of Greater Manchester said that the economy “from the mid-1980s onwards” had not been built for ordinary people and vowed to put a renewed focus on building council housing and technical education.
His comments nod to a decade in which 1.1 million council homes were built, and many children still went to a ‘Secondary Modern’ to learn technical skills if they didn’t pass the 11+.
Burnham also said his economic vision would mean “not leaving everything to the markets” and “public intervention where necessary” – rolling back the mass privatisation and city deregulation brought in by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s.
In his first major speech since returning to Westminster, Burnham harked back to his own childhood in the 1970s, claiming that two things that were the “foundations of working-class aspiration”, a council house and a technical education, “have been taken away in the decades since”.
He said that his challenge as the expected incoming Prime Minister was to deal with “an economy which from the mid 1980s onwards has not been built with [ordinary people] in mind and instead has handed more to those who already have most and left people overpaying for the basics”.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
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.
Burnham is best placed to bring in the mayoral dictatorships facilitated by the Devolution and Communities Empowerment Act, with his experience in Manchester, hence the change of leadership.
The questions to ask are:
Which communities are to be empowered?
If the claim is that this is to improve democracy, which people are being given power?
I would strongly suspect that the answer to both of these questions will not include the general population.
The last leadership change from Sunak to Starmer facilitated the likelihood of engagement of our forces in more hot wars and the conscription conversations.
Thomas Malthus did say that war was a useful way of controlling population numbers. (and it is also very good at shifting wealth from the general population to the highly wealthy)
The colour and leaning of a party does not matter as they are pulling in the same direction. Look at the laws both parties have passed which are exempting government from the law and scrutiny.
I very much doubt that Burnham, Baedenock, Farage, Polanski or any other potential leader is likely to tackle this governmental lawlessness.
Nor any of our representatives, it seems.
So whether or not Burnham has 10 years as… Read more »
Why did the word communism come to mind when I read this article? I have lived in the UK x 30 yrs. there has been no growth, no prosperity, little joy. Why? Because there has been no help from your administrations over the thirty years to improve your lives. Recreation centres, swimming pools, playing fields, nature walks, bowling clubs, libraries becoming extinct. Town centres void of banks, shops, pubs, signs of life. Small business owners gauged, towns left filthy, roads pitted with potholes, grass verges layered in garbage. Dear god, who would want to live here?
The Prime Minister not going to live at No.10 announced the same week as The King saying he won’t be living at Buckingham Palace….. interesting….
Yes, interesting.
With the acts of piracy likely to be provoking a bear, do you think they are moving themselves from obvious targets?
So he has a Plan to increase the number of Politicians and their bureaucratic fiefdoms. Without a Mandate.
How to destroy a nation – Stage One.
The Plan was already made and the Act is there to be implemented – he is there to carry out the plan
Not a chance, we need Restore to sort this country out. If we don’t get this done at the next election, this country is cooked.
I’m intrigued by the idea that a council house can be a “foundation of working-class aspiration”. Surely people aspire to owning their own home, with a council house as a sort of safety net? Mrs Thatcher understood that.
He is really talking about building rabbit hutches in towns and cities for the proles who of course “will own nothing and be very firkin miserable.”
Building anything these days would be an achievement given the way past governments have hollowed out the construction industry. In reality this will cost a bloody fortune and will of course just like HS2 present mega opportunities for fraud and money-laundering.
Indeed though I think it depends what is meant by working class. Most of the working class people I know are tradespeople who work for themselves and their aspiration is to get rich or at least comfortably off, which many of them are doing. Perhaps there are others who have low expectations of life and of themselves – a state of mind I believe encouraged by the welfare state and convenient for socialists as it creates a dependent group who will always vote for them.
He will vow to “change politics to make it work for us”,
Who is this ‘us’? The globalist immigrant scum loving Uniparty? The welfare scroungers? The trade unions?
If he is so dumb that he trolls out the same 10 years nonsense that the now gone Two Tier Toolmaker’s Son was laughed at for even before he gave up after not even TWO years, then he is already doomed. With Paki Mahmood slyly winding back her ‘tough’ immigration changes, the doors are being held open for more unwanted people who are costing the country £50billion a year, the decline can only accelerate to IMP bailout day.
Sad thing is, I know a lot of people who would happily extend the term to ten years.
“Four years is too short, they can’t accomplish anything meaningful!”
…and
“The climate doesn’t care who is in power, it just needs saving and I’d happily have a dictator for the next 20 years if he would ensure there’s a safe clean world for my children and grandchildren to live in!”
Well, none of them have outlasted Larry the cat, who I’d personally vote for if he stood as an independent. Chief Mouser extraordinaire and Supreme Keeper of Secrets, Larry is as stoic as he is shrewd, and he’ll have the measure of Burnham in no time. I’d quite like it if he did a number two in Burnham’s shoe, but he’s likely too much of a gentleman.
“I have accepted Keir Starmer’s resignation as my chief servant and have invited Andy Burnham to lay out details for how many meals a day he’ll give me” Larry.
”Another one bites the dust”
I reckon it’s because he’s got a poncy dog and Larry put his paw down and was like: ”No chuffing way, Sonny Jim! That mutt’s a deal-breaker.”
Phew, you dodged a bullet in more ways than one, there, Larry;
”Andy Burnham won’t use 10 Downing Street as his main residence if he becomes prime minister, it is claimed. The King of the North is expected to still live in his family home near Wigan and spend a minimum of a day a week in his proposed Manchester office.
He would be the first PM not to live full-time in Downing Street since Harold Wilson opted to live in Lord North Street during his second premiership from 1974-76.”
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/andy-burnham-wont-live-london-37364087
As an aside. There is a concerted effort in the Commentariat to brief against Nigel Farage and Reform UK and big-up Labour and predict the Tories rising from the ashes so Reform UK will end up as just an also-ran.
When all the birdies of a feather are twittering the same song, I spy conspiracy.
Wow, how exciting, t’king o’ t’North is going to increase devolution. What does that actually mean, other than more and more expensive layers of Government. Since Scottish and Welsh devolution that’s all we hear about, as though it will fix anything. The local authorities we currently have need less London interference, that’s all. At the moment, nearly every penny they spend is mandated by central government, with very little discretion. We’re currently going through a review of our local building plan in my county, the last proposal was rejected by central government and they have told us how much we have to build for the next twenty five years, which is far more than we need or want, how is that local? We don’t need mega mayors, we just need true localism without government interference. Less not more.
Megalomania alert!
Labour starting in 1945 has already transformed Britain into a Communist State of tyranny and oppression.
Planned and directed economies are the stuff of Marxist-Socialists and causes ruination – see UK economy. More of the same is not what is needed.
The Communist lays out the next 10 year plan to steal our money and give to deadbeats. Great, never any talk of removing legislation and lowering business costs to make the UK function like an actual economy again.
Devolve power and more state i.e. centralised control over utilities?
It all makes sense, don’t worry.
“powerful regional mayors” Barons? Devolving to fiefdoms and serfs.
Which worked so well in London
The left always seem to go for 5 year/10 year plans because they worked so well in the USSR and China.
If it increases the production of pig iron, I’m all for it.
“However, allies played down the prospect on Sunday, saying the public did not want a poll.”
In a representative survey of whoever was around Burnham’s campaign HQ at the time, 110% said that they didn’t want a General Election.
Meanwhile, Burnham is acclaimed by 120% of Party delegates.
A bit like the Makerfield result – a complete reversal of the locals and every opinion poll. In other words rigged.
I genuinely think the Makerfield result came about because voters wanted to get Starmer out of office, and this seemed an obvious way to do it. I don’t think they really thought about the consequences, but I hope they now realise what they’ve done.
10 years, it wont take him 10 months to further wreck what Starmer has created and give away many more billions to the feckless, who they believe are their core vote, when the truth is they are too lazy to go and vote.
5 years it is all over. 2 elections? The next one will be the last one if the Uniparty wins.
Burn the Hamlet Down will accelerate the Muslim-African Invasion and evthg else.
Outlawing opposition, Netzero, Rejoining the EU, Replacing the Pound with the Euro, Paving over rural areas. The 1 million invaders p.a. will turn into 2 million.
These are some sweets and treats this clown and his cult have for you.
What has Starmer “created”? Other than an absolute mess?
He has done F all for Manchester except create misery and mayhem. The towns of Greater Manchester are falling apart. The city centre is a dump and full of blicks and particularly in Piccadilly which is a horrible and somewhat frightening place nowadays.
God help us if Burn’em is the answer.