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.
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.
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.
- everyone who looks at the quadrilemma picks 'growth' (indeed, decent argument that none of the other options actually work, but no space to elaborate on that), few have a theory of change
- Burnham notes, inarguably correctly, that we are a highly centralised and highly geographically unequal country
- His theory of change: these are causally connected. Change one, change the other.
- How so? Well, if the locii of control are all in London, you get brain-drain, then you get further centralisation (because the depleted provinces can't be trusted), then you get loss of productivity, then it looks short-term logical to fund what's working (how you get HS2 before northern crossrail, and then remove the northern bits of HS2)
- Conclusion: attack all parts of this negative feedback loop. Dismantle it. Every region of the UK is not living up to its potential aside from London (pace Manchester); fix that, fix everything.
The suggestion of rent controls was certainly ... concerning. That is why I call it a steelman case rather than a straightforward pro-Burnham argument.
That said: I think Burnham like a bit of 'constructive ambiguity'. His pick of John Healey as Chancellor bodes well, because after weeks of setting hares running in different directions (and gauging the response) he did something simultaneously (i) almost completely unexpected that (ii) seems widely agreed to make total sense.
Is he playing 4D chess? That might be going too far. But one line I will hold: Burnham clearly isn't an idiot, he's not inexperienced, he has a theory of change, and a well-established world view. It's at least *possible* he knows what he's doing. I certainly hope so!
About that Burnhamite joke, the reason I just had to stop listening to Rest is Politics, is that i just finally couldn’t take Rory Stewart anymore, because his answer to every issue is ‘let’s take the politics out of politics’ (which ironically should have meant he was the last defender of Starmer) but whether it’s his constant banging on about Citizens Assemblies or his vague notions of what centrism is (Blair was a deeply political centrist, something Rory just doesn’t understand) every time he speaks you see just how childish his view of politics is, it’s all ‘if everyone just got together and discussed the issue sensibly they’d all discover they agree with me’ and I just couldn’t take it anymore (plus the fact he kept talking about his leadership campaign as if that was a real thing)
One thing with Burnham he might not be factional, but he is political and as long as can prove he prepared to have an argument and identify enemies then take them on, that will be a massive improvement
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.
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.
Je suis Ronald Reagan. They’re all Reagan. Or Thatcher? They’re all both of them. China ain’t the only totalitarian. The West simply has a more sophisticated form.
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.
"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
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.
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
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.
Steelman case for Burnham:
- everyone who looks at the quadrilemma picks 'growth' (indeed, decent argument that none of the other options actually work, but no space to elaborate on that), few have a theory of change
- Burnham notes, inarguably correctly, that we are a highly centralised and highly geographically unequal country
- His theory of change: these are causally connected. Change one, change the other.
- How so? Well, if the locii of control are all in London, you get brain-drain, then you get further centralisation (because the depleted provinces can't be trusted), then you get loss of productivity, then it looks short-term logical to fund what's working (how you get HS2 before northern crossrail, and then remove the northern bits of HS2)
- Conclusion: attack all parts of this negative feedback loop. Dismantle it. Every region of the UK is not living up to its potential aside from London (pace Manchester); fix that, fix everything.
It's a good theory – and to be clear I do really like the devolution agenda. I just hope he doesn't do... all of the bad ideas he's pitched so far.
The suggestion of rent controls was certainly ... concerning. That is why I call it a steelman case rather than a straightforward pro-Burnham argument.
That said: I think Burnham like a bit of 'constructive ambiguity'. His pick of John Healey as Chancellor bodes well, because after weeks of setting hares running in different directions (and gauging the response) he did something simultaneously (i) almost completely unexpected that (ii) seems widely agreed to make total sense.
Is he playing 4D chess? That might be going too far. But one line I will hold: Burnham clearly isn't an idiot, he's not inexperienced, he has a theory of change, and a well-established world view. It's at least *possible* he knows what he's doing. I certainly hope so!
It is all very reminiscent of Boris.
About that Burnhamite joke, the reason I just had to stop listening to Rest is Politics, is that i just finally couldn’t take Rory Stewart anymore, because his answer to every issue is ‘let’s take the politics out of politics’ (which ironically should have meant he was the last defender of Starmer) but whether it’s his constant banging on about Citizens Assemblies or his vague notions of what centrism is (Blair was a deeply political centrist, something Rory just doesn’t understand) every time he speaks you see just how childish his view of politics is, it’s all ‘if everyone just got together and discussed the issue sensibly they’d all discover they agree with me’ and I just couldn’t take it anymore (plus the fact he kept talking about his leadership campaign as if that was a real thing)
One thing with Burnham he might not be factional, but he is political and as long as can prove he prepared to have an argument and identify enemies then take them on, that will be a massive improvement
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.
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.
Je suis Ronald Reagan. They’re all Reagan. Or Thatcher? They’re all both of them. China ain’t the only totalitarian. The West simply has a more sophisticated form.
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.
"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