“A vote for me in this by-election campaign is a vote to change Labour,” Andy Burnham told a car park full of supporters this morning as he launched his campaign for the Makerfield by-election, in a speech that made it abundantly clear that voters in this constituency could well put him in Downing Street.
This was two speeches at once: one from a candidate for Northern MP outraged by local issues, one from a person who believes the only way to fix those issues is by moving into Westminster’s most desirable estate. “These by-elections will force Westminster to focus on the places where it usually looks the past,” he said, which is another way of saying to voters: what if your MP was Prime Minister?
The word “change” was used 19 times in this 15-minute speech. It was, he said, “a clarion call for change, change for people in this part of the world, a place I love dearly. Change in the economy. Change in education. Change in housing. Change in transportation. Change in care and yes, to make it all possible, change in politics.”
Voters already familiar with the Labor Party will remember an earlier one manifesto for Changewhich was followed by a Plan for Change. Sadly, there were also some important things Labor promised not to change, such as none of the three main income tax rates, which meant that after all the money the UK already spends, there wasn’t enough spare change to pay for the changes they wanted to make.
Subscribe to the New Statesman for £1 a week
Burnham’s argument is that Great Britain has lost control of public spending because it has no control over its assets. Privatization was a false economy that left us spending more, unable to limit the prices set by the private sector. This makes us more prone to inflation, which means we pay more to borrow, which pushes us further into debt.
This is a compelling argument, but it is hard to see how Britain would get its spending under control in the long term without making some (perhaps quite large) spending commitments in the short term. Burnham has pledged to keep the same rules on borrowing as Rachel Reeves and today he said he would keep his manifesto promise not to increase the three main tax rates (income tax, national insurance and VAT) paid by individuals. So where will he get the money?
After the speech, I asked Burnham this question, and he said it was a matter of “reprioritization.” He gave housing – which he called “the most basic thing of all that Britain has to fix” – as an example: Westminster has decided that local authorities must pay rent for “social housing” instead of building council houses, and the result is that the ten councils in Greater Manchester give £75m a year to landlords for temporary accommodation. “You’re trying to convince third parties to do what benefits public budgets the most,” he said, and “they may or may not.” Britain would not have to come up with new money to pay for this building work, he said, because £39bn was earmarked for housing in the Spending Review: “I’m saying it should go to council homes”.
Burnham said his management of Manchester’s bus network was an example of how “you can be more intrusive when you have public control”. Lower fees have led to higher network usage, meaning the utility brings in the same money while providing more public service.
A similar argument was made by Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves in 2024: that the greatest benefit to the public finances would come from simply running the country more effectively than the Conservatives had. Perhaps with a more effective PM – someone who can sell policies better to the public and his supporters – the idea still has value.
However, while Burnham said he was “focused on what we can do within the manifesto”, he also indicated a willingness to start a conversation about other, potentially transformative changes to public finances: “I have long been convinced of the argument for a land value tax”, he said, adding that he was “personally keen to see council tax reform” and that he would like to see higher hospital user charges. the streets bring the atmosphere, bring the people”.
So far, Labor seems to have wasted much of its time in power because it did not sell such ideas to the public in advance and came without a mandate to implement them. If Burnham is successful at Makerfield, that could change – but will he have time to make a difference?
(Further reading: Should the Green Party stay in Makerfield?)
Content from our partners
