Andy Burnham's bounce

 

 Andy Burnham has got off  to a good start.   

He’s begun on a note of optimism and hope (in contrast to Sir Keir Starmer’s telling us, perhaps more truthfully, that things would get worse before they got better,) given a positive promise to abolish homelessness, and maintains momentum with a series of  6am treats (VAT on electricity bills abolished, bus fares capped at £2, and 20% off business rates for pubs and restaurants,. . . .and counting?)

 Mr Burnham is displaying his common touch. 

A friend of mine, lifelong Liberal/Liberal Democrat activist and experienced councillor, tells me she’s “quite excited.”  The Liberal Democrat spokesperson has declared the party’s support, and Tory pedantic bleats of   “Where’s the money coming from?” seem very “old style.”

 However, the composition of the new cabinet gives  pause for some misgivings.  

 I’m sorry that Ed Miliband has not become Chancellor of the Exchequer.  As a former party leader he is both a “heavyweight” and has  economic qualifications and previous treasury experience, - just the man to tame treasury intransigence  and focus this most powerful department to service the government’s aspirations rather than stick to stale orthodoxy. 

Shifting Mr Miliband to the Foreign Office also has a scent of moving the party’s most credible firebrand to pastures where he will have less time and opportunity to affect domestic issues.

It is good to see Miatta Fahnbulleh as Mr Miliband’s replacement  as Energy Secretary.  She is allegedly a powerful intellect, a qualified economist and clearly destined for the Treasury at some future date.

 John Healey as Chancellor is all very well : he sounds a nice man much respected in the party.  But as former Defence Secretary he will be more inclined to furnish further funds for the wasteful and prestige-prone military than for, say, overseas development.

It is sad that, as yet, there is been no mention by Mr Burnham of restoring the Aid Budget to 0.7% of GDP.  It would also be nice to hear some prime-ministerial support for  the UK’s other “world leading” area of expertise, the BBC, and save their boring us with desperate puffs of how good they are in order to escape de-funding,

There is  little sign of any attempt to reduce “churn” in the cabinet (the switching of ministers to different departments before  they’ve grasped the job.)  Why, for example, is  not Wes Streeting  returned to the Health Ministry, where he is surely by now beginning to find his way around, rather than to Defence.  Does he know anything about that?

However, one cabinet mister who retains her post and in my view shouldn’t is Shabana Mahmood, who remains at the Home Office and seems determined to continue the Tory Theresa May’s  policy of a “hostile environment” for immigrants. 

M/s Mahmood is herself a “person of colour” and of immigrant stock and seems to take that a as licence to be aggressive to immigrants,  or at least some of them. (No one seems too worried about escapees from Trump’s America who as settling in the  Cotswolds.)  Her proposals on “indefinite leave to remain” and the possibility of deporting people who’ve been settled here for years, and their children, are despicable.  I would have thought better of a Burnham Government.

There are also accusation of a fairly savage purge of  Starmerite former cabinet ministers, who have not taken kindly to their dismissal.  This could turn out to be an error.  The last thing the country  needs is factional discontent  in the Labour Party, which the largely hostile press would  do their best to amplify.  The entire party should knuckle down and support what  the vast majority of  them wished for.

  Mr Burnham’s over-all aim is to reverse the neoliberal creed  of Margaret Thatcher  which the establishment has followed for  the past forty years.By way of privatisations with inadequate regulation, deregulation of the banking sector, sale of council hoses, reduction of the powers of local government, low taxation priority over public services, is responsible for most of the difficulties our country faces. 

Good luck to him.

 

Post Script: since writing the above I have read today's paper and discovered that the reduction of the cap on our bus fares  is to be funded from the Aid Budget.  Oh dear. 

Random thoughts

 Andy Burnham

I am away on holiday for the next week so shan’t be able to comment again before  Mr Burnham’s accession into the premiership.  I wish him all the luck in the world.

I've seen him described as having policies not much different from those of Sir Keir Starmer, but being a better communicator.  I think that's a bit unfair, and  still hope he is secretly negotiating with the Libera Democrats and Greens to beef up his cabinet by bringing some of them into it.  

Maybe Sir Ed Davey at the Home Office; a Green at Environment, thus releasing Ed Miliband for the Treasury; and retaining Sir Keir as Foreign Secretary. 

 Overseas Aid

 One of the few things at which the UK is still undeniably "World Leading" is overseas development, so it was both stupid as well as bordering on the criminal for the UK to try to balance our books on the world's poorest.  Yet that is in fact what our two previous governments have done : under Rishi Sunak from 0.7% of GDP to 0.5%, then Starmer a further cut to 0.3%. 

According the today's Guardian (13th July") a group of Labour MPs, along David Miliband, are urging Mr Burnham to support a New Economics foundation proposal to "restore Brown-era international aid spending."  Let's hope Mr Burnham listens. ( See later for where the money could come from. ) 

At the same time let's hope he doesn’t listen to the trade unions wanting to preserve limitless political contributions to parties.  The Tech Bros will always win.The existing proposals to limit them should go much further. 

The World Cup.

 I'm not a great football fan and haven't watched any of the matches, but I do know enough to be aware that Jude Bellingham, who scored  the two goals which  will take us to the semi-final, is "a person of colour."  I've looked up his origins on Google and apparently he's of Irish extraction on his Mother's side and Jamaican from his Father.  

Just the sort of cocktail that exemplifies what is best of modern Britain. 

And he's not alone  A friend who actually did watch the quarter-final tells me that, by the end of the game, only four of England’s players were "White British" and the other seen were all "persons of colour."  One of them was even a Muslim. Wow! 

 I wonder if those responsible for draping our lampposts with now-fading Union Flags and St George's Crosses in the name of patriotism, but with the barely veiled threat of "no foreigners here," many if not most of them probably enthusiastic soccer fans, are capable of putting two and two together?

Hold-ups at Dover and Elsewhere

As most schools break up  by the end of this week there is increasing anxiety and some anger.about delays caused by border checks at Dover and other crossings. 

I hope that those who are delayed and who voted for Brexit, and  are still spouting "we must control our borders," are able to put two and two together.

 As Global Justice Now" points out, most people are fully in favour of "free movement" - for themselves.  It's others whose freedoms should be curtailed (see five posts on this blog in May 2025).

 Where's the money to come from? 

Mr Burnham is being urged to adopt of policy proposed by the Institute of Global Prosperity at University  College London, called Prosperity 2030.  According to the Guardian on 10th July, the proposal is that six key taxes, including;

income tax;

capital gains tax;

inheritance tax

national Insurance contritions;

should be rolled into one and all collected at the same rate.

 I haven't yet read the details, but I do understand  that the UK's taxes are far too complicated after years of minor adjustments to placate this that and the other special interests, and massive simplification should be the order of the day.

 

Genuine commiserations to Scotland. Come on England ! 

 

The Burnham Devolution.

 It is encouraging that Andy Burnham seems as enthusiastic about devolution now that he is likely to take over power at the centre as he was when he was just a regional mayor.  Such consistency is to be admired.

However, desirable as devolution is in our over-centralised state, it should not be confused  with democracy.  Devolution of powers from a central despot to a collection of local ones is an improvement, but will not necessarily be sensitive to the needs of the people allegedly represented, and very unlikely to engage them  (us) in its administration.

In my life- time local government has moved further and further away from the grass roots.  Until the late 1930s Birstall, the  (formerly) industrial village where I live, was “governed” by its own  Urban District Council. Although the proposal to merge us into the neighbouring Borough of Batley two miles down the road was defeated in a referendum by a massive 3500 votes to 25 (with 190 abstentions) the merger went ahead. 

Then in the 1970s Batley’s  Borough Council was itself abolished and we were submerged into Kirklees, administered from Huddersfield, seven miles away. 

We still had a County Council based in Wakefield, which administered large scale services,( for which in education ,for example, it was internationally famous,*) but Mrs Thatcher abolished it in the1980s because it kept falling into Labour hands. ( The Greater London Council suffered the same fate at the same time for the same reasons.)

The de-democratising  process continue. 

The last series of Conservative governments imposed Directly Elected Mayors on Combined Authorities. Ours was certainly against the will of the councillors in most of the West Yorkshire authorities, without the actual public even being asked.

  The present Labour government is abolishing  District Councils and imposing massive Unitary  Authorities. For example, the entire  Surrey County is now to be administered by just  two of these.

 The concept of the US-style directly elected mayors, to which Andy Burnham owes his popularity, (or notoriety, if you prefer) is flawed for three reasons.

First it places the emphasis on the personality of one individual rather than on the policies of a group. An engaging, (or flamboyant) personality can be an  important asset in politics but is not sufficient on its own, as  Boris Johnson’s performance as both London Mayor and Prime Minister illustrates.

Secondly, with the exception of London, where the mayor is accountable  to the elected London Assembly, the other mayors are accountable, if at all, only to  delegates on Combined Authorities, not directly elected and largely unknown to the people they are meant to represent.

Thirdly the existing directly elected mayors have often been seen as, and could easily remain, agents of the central government, dishing out largesse from Westminster  largely on Westminster’s instructions, in the manner of Santa Claus mayors.

 For devolution to revolutionise both our democracy and economy   we need leaders not only with powers and tax-raising ability, but democratic legitimacy through having been chosen by the people they represent at regional, county, town and parish level.  

*  Correction.  A comment below points out that the Internationally famous education authority was its predecessor, the West Riding County council  (WRCC) which was abolished in the 1970s reforms,   The succeeding West Yorkshire County Council was not an education authority.  Apologies.

Recipe for a real change of direction

 

Labour could have been honest in 2024.  They claimed, (and still do: Duty Minister  on Radio 4's "Today" this morning) an “extraordinary and emphatic victory” in that election, but it was nothing of the sort.  Rather it was an emphatic rejection of the Tories after a decade of disasters. Labour itself   had received only  a third of the votes cast and, given the low turnout, this amounted to the support of only a quarter of those entitled to vote.

It was in no way an endorsement of Labour’s programme or confidence in their ability to implement it.

Labour  could have done the decent thing -  recognised the paucity of their support and, noting that with the Liberal Democrat and Green votes, together with  theirs, they would have the support of the majority of the voters, invited representatives of those parties (and possibly some nationalists) into their Government to form a  Coalition of the Willing

When I argued this case at the time a close friend, former Labour Party stalwart and now a supporter of the Greens, commented:  “Maybe true, but it isn’t going to happen.”

And, of course, it didn’t. The opportunity was missed and their government has blundered into the ground.

Sir Keir Starmer’s resignation and the anticipated succession Andy Burnham gives them, and more importantly the country, a second chance. 

The new  government will face exactly the same problems as Sir Keir’s did: with problems probably getting even worse.  I suggest Mr Burnham  promises, in the campaign for the succession if there is one, that he will recognise the truth and offer to share some posts with other “progressives.” 

Why not offer Liberal Democrats, given our concerns for liberty and international development, the Home Office and Department of International Development (reconstituted and split off from Sir Keir’s Foreign Office)?

A Green MP could put in charge of the Department of Environment (releasing Ed Miliband to serve are Chancellor of the Exchequer?) along with cabinet posts for the nationalist leaders in the Scottish and Welsh Offices.

That would signal genuine change, and give the new government the “oomph” that the present one lacks.

 Not only that, but it would anticipate the future, rather than leaving the UK to be reluctantly dragged into it, as has been the norm in the past.

 Mr Burnham is in favour of proportional representation, and that will almost inevitably lead to coalitions in the future.  

 On present expectations PR is not to operate until the next General Election but one, but it could be brought forward. Even if it isn’t there is no reason why an optional coalition should not be tried before Labour is forced to participate in one if it is to share in government in the future.. 

We’ve had   “winner takes all” for all of this century and seen where it has landed us.

Mr Burnham should take the lead and  offer to bring in the future now.

Makerfield: we can breathe again.

 

Three cheers for the voters of Makerfield: they have delivered the best possible result.  Andy Burnham’s resounding majority of over 9 000,  with 54% of the vote against Reform’s 35%, should puncture Farage’s balloon and push talk of his becoming our next prime minister into the realms of fantasy.

 Reform can’t even claim that they were robbed because the  even-further-to the-right Restore split their vote.  Their candidate received only 7% of the vote so both together were still 12% behind Labour.

Congratulations to the Liberal Democrats and Greens (and presumably many Tories) who accurately “read the runes” and had the sense either to vote tactically for Burnham, or stay at home.  The electorate is learning, possibly just in time to say farewell to “first past the post.”

The “chattering classes” have already turned their (our?) attention to “what happens next.” 

Ideally Sir Keir Starmer should step aside on the promise of becoming Foreign Secretary (an area in which he has a reasonable track record) and  Labour MPs should decide as quickly as possible which of Burnham, Sweeting, Miliband or anyone else who fancies his/her chances, should lead them in parliament. 

A protracted battle  for the support of Labour Party members is the last thing we need (but, sadly, is what we shall probably get: the Labour Party seems to have a death wish.)

Once installed Burnham (or whoever) should act decisively to:

·       Raise from the cornucopia of taxes SheffieldProfessor Richard Murphy has identified, the money to repair the public realm, support  those who need support and arm us appropriately:

·       Devolve real powers (including tax raising ) to the national, regional and local authorities (assuming he will be as keen on that when he controls the centre as  he was when he was a regional mayor):

·       Introduce proportional representation by single transferable vote in multi- member constituencies (and not closed party lists).

This could be a turn round in the right direction as significant as Brexit was in the wrong one.  We shall see.