Reasons for hope: why a Burnham government deserves support that previous governments did not

In a speech at the People’s History Museum in Manchester City Centre on Monday, Andy Burnham set out his vision for his soon-to-be government. 

First, it spoke to a number of issues that the soon-to-be former New New Labour Government never bothered to address. This is because that was a government specifically designed not to change anything – the name of its 2024 manifesto a mere marketing device. Partly, this is because the leadership are very comfortable with the way things are done in this country, including the explosion in wealth inequality over the last 15+ years. But it’s also because it was a government led by a Prime Minister without any political interest or vision. There may not have been a better demonstration of the difference between the skills of a bureaucrat (or lawyer) in charge of an executive agency who is given an overarching vision to enact, and a politician who is intended to design that overarching mission and remit. Someone who has always worked strictly within structures is unlikely to be capable of changing those structures. 

Crucially, Burnham has realised in recent years just how weird, outlying and distorting a workplace Westminster is. Central Government in London was designed almost a Millennium ago as the powerbase for an invading outgroup that sought to dominate the rest of the country, especially the North.

It’s in that context that it is both symbolic and potentially transformational simply to have a Prime Minister with a Northern accent for the first time in 50 years and who is deliberately basing a significant component of his office in the North with a remit to address regional inequality.

His proposal of a legal commitment to pursue the equalisation of living standards in all regions through a German-style Basic Law is essential. It’s simply not acceptable to pretend that we are a wealthy nation, when London is comparable to Switzerland and the North East is comparable to the Slovak Republic. The wealth of the South East is grounded on exploitation and neglect of the rest of the country. We proposed that Labour implement such a principle in Act Now, with electoral reform, including endorsing the Jenkins’ Commission’s AV+, the replacement of the House of Lords with an Assembly of the Nations and Regions with membership from devolved government to ensure that there is a mechanism to ensure that regional inequality is taken seriously in the UK legislature. We encourage Burnham’s government to bring forward reform on this front as a matter of urgency. The opportunity to make these structural reforms may not come again.

Burnham’s commitment to devolution to regional and local level with genuine control over policy at that level is key in ensuring that public services for the public good can be delivered in all parts of the country. This is significant shift from local government as simply service delivery mechanism. Yes, regional and local governments will, like central government, get things wrong, but they need to have the financial and policy powers necessary to make decisions and be held accountable by the electorate.

A core part of Burnham’s approach to addressing regional inequality is his commitment to large-scale council house building. This concern is transformative, rejecting the notion of social housing, which has been used as a term to conceal the fact that government has refused to take control of and pay for the failures of housing policy since the 1980. No private company will deliver the scale of public housing we need – indeed, they often avoid delivering on affordable housing obligations during planning processes at local authority level. Given the chronic failure to create a skilled, motivated and responsible workforce capable of rebuilding our housing stock, the government should establish our Act Now National Building Service. Only a national workforce can build the public sector housing efficiently and effectively. Working directly and without sub-contracting, will create stable, secure jobs for our tradespeople, drive up standards and provide competitive pressure to private housebuilding, as happened in the 1970s.

Also key is Burnham’s endorsement of public control over utilities and key infrastructure. While there has been significant debate on whether this is a climb down from the full nationalisation to which we are committed, if there are means of embedding public control at levels and in ways that are difficult to undo, that is a step forward. We simply cannot continue to rent at extortionate prices things that we once owned. If public control reduces the market value of natural monopolies, this will make renationalisation easier in the longer-term.

Burnham’s approach to the structure of central government and party discipline is also important. He has the right to set a direction and to be firm on that, but also to ensure that MPs are free to dissent on issues without actively sabotaging the running of government. It is important, in this regard, to address concern about the appointment of Blairites, such as James Purnell, to positions of power within Number 10. To be clear, that concern is understandable: those who have gained materially from the catastrophic damage done to Britain by private utilities or to have expended such energy on lobbying for welfare cuts ought to be questioned. However, it is equally important to note that progressive politics has long lacked any organisational competence.

One of the key reasons that New Labour was originally successful was because so many of its architects began as communists who understood the importance of vanguardism. Long after they abandoned their adolescent ideological commitments, their understanding of ruthless centralised control at the top of parties gave them advantages over much more popular opponents. Former Member of the Young Communist League, Peter Mandelson, not only shaped the organisational and comms practices of New Labour, Labour Together and New New Labour, but also inspired right-wing vanguardism that has been so difficult to oppose. Labour under Corbyn simply could not understand, let alone rebut, the organisational and comms resistance encountered. At a time in which any progressive change is subject to near universal media hostility and internal opposition, it is critical that Burnham is supported by a ruthless, cynical and aggressive organisational operation. If Purnell facilitates this, good; if he puts outlying ideological commitments in the way of progress, he, like the Burnham Government will fall. As myriad examples from the UK, US, Germany and elsewhere demonstrate, doing nothing is a guaranteed pathway to electoral oblivion and far-right government. 

Burnham’s intention to challenge the adversarial environment in the civil service is similarly important. Treasury orthodoxy is one key underpinning feature of this environment, with failed inherited approaches favoured as feasible over any attempt to try something new or, indeed, to return to successful approaches from the past or elsewhere. Burnham has committed to the existing fiscal rules, which are an unnecessary bind on the government’s hands and which we propose replacing with Common Sense Economic rules, which we outline in We Cannot Afford Cuts. This is an understandable political line to take, since it undercuts the ability of the media and political opposition to argue that there is going to be some catastrophic level of spending. However, the new government must show immediately what public investment can do to genuinely change people’s living standards and move to bolder Economic Rules from there.

Most importantly, Burnham has repeatedly stated that trickle-down economics does not work. This must be taken to heart as a rejection of the approaches that have been pursued since 1979. That means no longer buying into the bullshit of lobbyists who have an active interest in harming the state and offshoring as many activities as possible. A patriotic approach to investment and procurement, favouring British businesses that employ people and pay tax here is essential. Burnham endorsed procurement rules that account for social benefit – that is a great start.

Much of this public investment is the key means of addressing some of the other areas Burnham touched on, including reindustrialisation in regions for critical industries, education and employment opportunities, high streets and the cost of living. Underpinning all of this must be a commitment to a net zero transition with our Quadruple Lock to protect individuals and communities in areas with carbon intensive industries. This would guarantee work at an equivalent level of pay, training and skills support and public investment into those communities. This would address a key component of opposition to the transition among some traditionally Labour voting areas and usually leftwing unions like Unite. Reforming local taxes is essential and overdue, with revised housing tax to replace council tax a clear means of reducing regressive taxation – another key claim in Act Now.

We urge Burnham to go much further once in government and settled. Act Now and our recent reports outline feasible, affordable and popular reforms to all sections of domestic policy. We are updating this analysis and will release further policy proposals very soon. If a Burnham Government can set a firm foundation and make a real difference rapidly, we have the policy suite to achieve the National Renewal Starmer saw merely as a rhetorical device.