“This year will be more difficult than last year, on the other hand, it will be easier than next year.” Until recently, this 1967 New Year’s message from Enver Hoxha, Albania’s communist dictator, was seen as a punchline – a ridiculous form of Maoist rhetoric. Unfortunately, Keir Starmer’s number 10 has looked more like a pick-me-up line. Fresh from his landslide 2024 election victory on the platform of “Change”, the Prime Minister delivered his famous Rose Garden speech in which he said things “were worse than we ever imagined”, the budget would be “painful”, there would be “tough action” and “huge demands” from voters. To sum it up: “Things can only get bitter.” And they did.
Optimism fuels progressive governments and without it – even if it had avoided all the self-inflicted wounds – the Starmer government was doomed. An unnoticed side effect of this pessimism is the way it has shaped the discourse on UK politics, with endless austerity columns bemoaning the country’s “ungovernability”. It is absurdly suggested that the crisis of conservatism – as illustrated by the Tories’ 1 per cent support in the Makerfield by-election – is the responsibility of the Labor Party. All the issues cited in the “declinist” genre are policy failures, plain and simple. The fact that we haven’t had a leader at ease with power and politics since Tony Blair is surely why we take him at his word when he makes one of his regular interventions.
Which brings me to Andy Burnham, a politician who clearly puts political journalists to shame by enjoying being a political leader and being comfortable in his own skin. One sign of how difficult it is to have an intelligent discussion about Burnham’s potential as a leader is the repeated criticism that he is a “people pleaser”. Exactly which successful politician is a “people hater”? Smuggled into this critique is a corruption of early-era Blair. It started as the notion that you fight your own party – as on point 4 – showed strength and seeped into the practice of Keir Starmer’s team constantly trying to bully Diane Abbott and silence backbench MPs. Voters notice the closed-mindedness: if you ignore your own people, what does that say about your attitude toward someone you’ve never met? There is an analogous concern that as mayor, Andy Burnham built on the successes of his Labor predecessors. What did he intend to do? Burn them and build on the ashes?
It really means a search for a “Gotcha!” moment, as seen in the breathless attempt to turn a politically astute observation about the Waspi Women’s campaign into a “spend commitment”. At a rally, Burnham commented: “So I stand by the activists I support. I stood by the families of Hillsborough, I will stand by the Waspi women because they deserve some recompense for the injustice.” The important part of this statement is the first part – keeping the promises you make to voters. One of the deadliest criticisms in politics is “says one thing, does another” – you have to be careful both with what you support and with what you do. The Victorian Labor Party in Australia won three consecutive elections, becoming one of the 21 most successfulstr-the social democratic parties of the century, adopting the new practice of delivering on each of their manifesto promises – and then telling the public what they had done.
These are signs of how narrow the current political discourse has become. Burnham’s attack on “neoliberalism” led to endless questions about why he worked with the private sector. The long-term framing of economic issues as a choice between late-stage turbocharged capitalism, which voters have repeatedly rejected (in Brexit, rising for Corbyn and in handing back-to-back slips to Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer), or a form of state socialism obscures the real debate and the actual election. The state taking control of Thames Water – whose case to the regulator is that it cannot afford to pay the fines it has incurred – is simply a way of punishing one, educating a thousand. It would be a crowd pleaser and show that actions have consequences.
“The Return of the State” is also the most compelling case for Andy Burnham and the reason why journalists still struggle to understand “Burnhamism”. New Labour’s aversion to nationalization is now as outdated as Old Labor was in the 1990s. The records of Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair make the case for having a clear ideology, and the first two years of this Labor government have tried to destroy the idea that not having a guiding political philosophy benefits a government. An activist state with the “Green Transition” at its heart, with a commitment to municipal enterprises and council house building, a state that shapes the economy rather than blowing it up and earns “royalties” from its investments and the IP it supports, is a break from decades past. And so it should be – Thatcher and Blair were the books of the late seventies. This is the second quarter of 21str century – we must make it new.
It’s time for a real change. A rejection of the dreary policy of “like it or collect it – we’re taking your winter fuel pay off, because!” Time to try a leader who enjoys his job, makes a compelling case for change, and works to build a coalition to support his actions. The 2029 general election will be as defining for the country as 1979. The end of neoliberal governance ushers in a new era – for progressives, one that is resolutely upbeat and optimistic.
(Further reading: Does Andy Burnham understand neoliberalism?)
