Unfortunately there has been a phoney war where in order to avoid a challenger, Burnhamism has been a fairly blank sheet to project upon. It has also felt like turf wars on policy as you discussed.
We're all waiting on 4pm on Monday to see what the first choices are from Burnham. And who will be first to shout "betrayal" as tradition demands.
To be prime minister is to choose and to lead. Whether this PLP is able to be led or whatever the furies will behead another PM? I don't have a scooby. He does have soft skills (an improvement) but is that enough.
The worst thing is that he kills all the various little projects that you, I and your readers like to pay for terrible macro policy like rent control.
My main (only?) source of hope is that he gets devolution right. Otherwise I have low expectations, but this is a big enough deal that there is some grounds for optimism.
Yeah devolution is definitely a part of his agenda that I'm on board with – though again, it sort of raises questions about why his team are wading in on London robotaxis... Shouldn't that be something for the Mayor of London to worry about?!
Everyone loves devolution when it allows them to do what they want and never when someone else gets to do what they want. Hopefully it's a staffer talking shit and devolution takes precedence over the anti-tech / AI biases of his team.
Ultimately Andy Burnham has been elevated to Number 10 to address the Labour Party's weak performance in the polls, rather than with any particular theory of government in mind.
I agree that many of these aren’t optimal policies. But could they still be an improvement? Eg better not to have rent controls, but I understand there’s a French version to the effect of ‘if a local area doesn’t permit enough building, rent controls are allowed instead to protect renters and incentivise building’.
Could there perhaps be these kind of not great but fine policies that Burnham can find elsewhere? Eg no to centrally mandate robotaxis but devolved areas can permit?
I strongly agree Burnham won’t be perfect, but if he gets some of the structural stuff like devo to a better place, won’t we at least get some catch up growth, which will start the flywheel and create the space to do other pro growth things like sorting HS2 to MCR? Cope perhaps…
I think it’s completely coherent to call for an end to neoliberalism, inward private investment, and empowered localism with soft-left values. I almost don’t understand how it couldn’t be so.
One of the criticisms of neoliberalism – I don’t know if it’s the one Burnham’s getting at – is its destruction of locality. If you’re relaxed about private capital doing what it wants, and relaxed about globalisation, what do you do when private capital says “I’ll start removing all the wealth from your locality?” For many people in Britain, the answer is “become miserable,” fairly understandably.
Although people say “neoliberalism” is just a word for “market-driven solutions,” this seems a pretty clear case where that’s not exactly true. The reason railing against it is compatible with building loads of giant skyscrapers in Manchester is that it’s hard to move a giant skyscraper away from the place. It is at least an attempt to get value flowing into Britain itself and the people who live here, instead of streaming out of it.
All these different elements of what Burnham has said fit coherently around that idea. I am cautiously pessimistic about whether any of it is sincere or actually works. But the idea it is incoherent is simply untenable, I think.
Government spending on housing,SEND and disability is exploding, consuming far more money than defence. It doesn't seem like Burnham has any plan to stop it increasing and it will eat up all the fiscal room he has. A consequence of this is that a few reforms to London housing rules could give him all the fidcal room he wants.
The UK is excessively centralised and as a consequence under invests in the regions - what few incentives regions do have to invest are suppressed by the way tax and fiscal spending rules are set up. Fixing these will both incentivise and permit more growth.
Think his whole analysis is that the vibes were off.
“Build baby build” is a low status thing to say within the soft left, so that’s going.
He knows that a lot of people of his persuasion like the idea of a wealth tax, he knows it’s nonsense so is being careful not to do it but also not rule it out.
Digital ID had bad vibes so has to be sacrificed.
Labour types haaaaate the cuts to foreign aid - so they’re briefing that’s going to go up to 0.7% GDP.
On migration… perhaps this is where he does actually recognise the electoral reality.
The signs that Burnham will squeeze immigration are interesting, because there seem few policies less likely to please Labour than restricting it. It doesn't seem to tally with Burnham's general approach.
"I want Andy Burnham to be successful – I want him to grow the economy, pursue abundance..."
My suspicion is that Burnham will not measure success by whether he can get the economy moving and deliver abundance.
He seems more the kind of person to have a target calculated on a spreadsheet to hit rather than letting people produce as much of a thing as they like. "Everyone should have enough, but not more than enough" seems the vibe
Unfortunately there has been a phoney war where in order to avoid a challenger, Burnhamism has been a fairly blank sheet to project upon. It has also felt like turf wars on policy as you discussed.
We're all waiting on 4pm on Monday to see what the first choices are from Burnham. And who will be first to shout "betrayal" as tradition demands.
To be prime minister is to choose and to lead. Whether this PLP is able to be led or whatever the furies will behead another PM? I don't have a scooby. He does have soft skills (an improvement) but is that enough.
The worst thing is that he kills all the various little projects that you, I and your readers like to pay for terrible macro policy like rent control.
A nation holds its breath
My main (only?) source of hope is that he gets devolution right. Otherwise I have low expectations, but this is a big enough deal that there is some grounds for optimism.
Yeah devolution is definitely a part of his agenda that I'm on board with – though again, it sort of raises questions about why his team are wading in on London robotaxis... Shouldn't that be something for the Mayor of London to worry about?!
Everyone loves devolution when it allows them to do what they want and never when someone else gets to do what they want. Hopefully it's a staffer talking shit and devolution takes precedence over the anti-tech / AI biases of his team.
It is all very reminiscent of Boris.
Ultimately Andy Burnham has been elevated to Number 10 to address the Labour Party's weak performance in the polls, rather than with any particular theory of government in mind.
It is all very reminiscent of Boris.
I agree that many of these aren’t optimal policies. But could they still be an improvement? Eg better not to have rent controls, but I understand there’s a French version to the effect of ‘if a local area doesn’t permit enough building, rent controls are allowed instead to protect renters and incentivise building’.
Could there perhaps be these kind of not great but fine policies that Burnham can find elsewhere? Eg no to centrally mandate robotaxis but devolved areas can permit?
I strongly agree Burnham won’t be perfect, but if he gets some of the structural stuff like devo to a better place, won’t we at least get some catch up growth, which will start the flywheel and create the space to do other pro growth things like sorting HS2 to MCR? Cope perhaps…
I think it’s completely coherent to call for an end to neoliberalism, inward private investment, and empowered localism with soft-left values. I almost don’t understand how it couldn’t be so.
One of the criticisms of neoliberalism – I don’t know if it’s the one Burnham’s getting at – is its destruction of locality. If you’re relaxed about private capital doing what it wants, and relaxed about globalisation, what do you do when private capital says “I’ll start removing all the wealth from your locality?” For many people in Britain, the answer is “become miserable,” fairly understandably.
Although people say “neoliberalism” is just a word for “market-driven solutions,” this seems a pretty clear case where that’s not exactly true. The reason railing against it is compatible with building loads of giant skyscrapers in Manchester is that it’s hard to move a giant skyscraper away from the place. It is at least an attempt to get value flowing into Britain itself and the people who live here, instead of streaming out of it.
All these different elements of what Burnham has said fit coherently around that idea. I am cautiously pessimistic about whether any of it is sincere or actually works. But the idea it is incoherent is simply untenable, I think.
Government spending on housing,SEND and disability is exploding, consuming far more money than defence. It doesn't seem like Burnham has any plan to stop it increasing and it will eat up all the fiscal room he has. A consequence of this is that a few reforms to London housing rules could give him all the fidcal room he wants.
Can anyone explain the focus on devolution?
It isn't unpopular but it such a low salience issue and I am not sure which of the UK's many issues it is supposed to help with.
The UK is excessively centralised and as a consequence under invests in the regions - what few incentives regions do have to invest are suppressed by the way tax and fiscal spending rules are set up. Fixing these will both incentivise and permit more growth.
Tom Forth has a lot of good stuff on it:
https://tomforth.co.uk/
And the centre for cities does too:
https://www.centreforcities.org/
Think his whole analysis is that the vibes were off.
“Build baby build” is a low status thing to say within the soft left, so that’s going.
He knows that a lot of people of his persuasion like the idea of a wealth tax, he knows it’s nonsense so is being careful not to do it but also not rule it out.
Digital ID had bad vibes so has to be sacrificed.
Labour types haaaaate the cuts to foreign aid - so they’re briefing that’s going to go up to 0.7% GDP.
On migration… perhaps this is where he does actually recognise the electoral reality.
The signs that Burnham will squeeze immigration are interesting, because there seem few policies less likely to please Labour than restricting it. It doesn't seem to tally with Burnham's general approach.
"I want Andy Burnham to be successful – I want him to grow the economy, pursue abundance..."
My suspicion is that Burnham will not measure success by whether he can get the economy moving and deliver abundance.
He seems more the kind of person to have a target calculated on a spreadsheet to hit rather than letting people produce as much of a thing as they like. "Everyone should have enough, but not more than enough" seems the vibe