On Saturday, I went to see The Odyssey. It’s not Christopher Nolan’s best; indeed, I’m not sure it’s even the best film that he has directed about Matt Damon trying to get home. Nonetheless, it seemed timely: a noble if ageing leader, rhapsodised in his absence, finally returning to seize the throne in his nation’s moment of peril.
I’m not sure Damon would play a good Andy Burnham though. Our new Prime Minister is more Andy Capp than Jason Bourne. It’s not an original point, but to this soppy Southern sod, Burnham seems almost comically Northern. As the proud offspring of generations of Geordies, I don’t want to sound condescending to my fellow countrymen above Watford Gap. But Burnham is almost ChatGPT-generated. The Stone Roses (obviously). Chips and gravy. Oasis (obviously). The football. The Smiths, but not Morrissey (obviously). The darts. And THATCHER (obviously). A Prime Minister anointed by Tik-Tok and vibes, chief of our new post-literate Britain.
Who is this carpetbagger coming daan saaf to lecture us about our greatest post-war Prime Minister? His speech accepting Labour’s leadership was an extended lament about the crimes of the Great Handbag. Second only to 60 years of hurt stands ’40 years of neo-liberalism’. According to Burnham, Britain ‘took a series of wrong turns in the 1980s’, when we ‘surrendered control’ of utilities and saw ‘large parts of Britain…deindustrialised’. Over a decade on from her death, her spectre still haunts lefties of a certain age, spurred on and horrified by the bogeywoman who proved them all wrong.
For a more accurate impression of what took place in that decade, our Director General and chums over at the Adam Smith Institute and Centre for Policy Studies have you covered. It’s easy to point out the flaws in Burnham’s argument: that Labour were in power for fifteen of those benighted 40 years, with Burnham in the Cabinet for three of them; that deindustrialisation accelerated under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown; that if there are three things Britain is suffering from at the moment, they are not a lack of debt, a tax burden too low, or a state that doesn’t interfere enough.
Economic Affairs readers should all be assured that history and common sense are on our side of the argument. But it’s no good just saying that things were awful in the 70s, listing the myriad ways in which Margaret Thatcher’s governments transformed them, and hoping voters will sour on Burnham. Any student of Dominic Sandbrook knows about the strikes and 25 per cent inflation. But they also know about space-hoppers, ABBA and Tom Baker as Doctor Who. The thinking Left – if that isn’t a contradiction in terms – has long sought to rehabilitate the 70s. The New Economics Foundation – previously headed by one of Burnham’s incoming policy supremos – once branded 1976 Britain’s happiest year since the Second World War, when judged by income equality and public spending. Just don’t mention caps in hands.
Andy Burnham ©House of Commons
Burnham’s appeal is not based on concrete achievements. As Tali Fraser has pointed out, Manchester’s prosperity owes far more to an almost caricature version of hard-nosed Thatcherism than Burnham’s own initiatives; even then, the city’s success is statistically dubious. But compared to the late Soviet man he replaces, Burnham can least make people feel good about themselves. His bucket-hat socialism may be easy to take the mick out of, but it won him three mayoral elections, and has ensured his coronation as Labour leader. When he speaks of life becoming more difficult, of a sense of a loss of control, of a desire for politics to be done differently and for ordinary people to be empowered, he strikes a chord with many across the country – even if his prescriptions of what is wrong and what to do about it are misguided.
As ludicrous as Burnham’s incoming premiership can sometimes seem, it must be taken seriously. Some on the free-market, classically liberal side of the equation are optimistic that he will crash and burn sufficiently quickly that it will discredit the Left for a generation. Do they know of what they speak? Physician, heal thyself. We should focus and prepare: do what Thatcher, her closest advisers, her parliamentary allies and the think-tank archipelago did in the 70s, and work out how to govern as well as what we would like to do while there. Stepping Stones 2.0 still remains to be written.
We are onto our sixth new Prime Minister since Brexit. Political failure like this - continual change, yet nothing changing - can only be endured for so long until voters roll the dice on something darker. If and when Burnham fails, it opens that door.
Things can always get worse. Burnham is far from the most appalling the Left can offer. We all know the usual response from disappointed socialists is to suggest that real socialism has not yet been tried, and double down. A Burnham premiership that comes a cropper on the bond markets will not simply prevent Prime Minister Polanski by example. Any crisis must be used by those on our side of the economic divide as an opportunity for correction; unlike Thomas Tuchel, we cannot simply sit back when Burnham gets in trouble and hope to win. When will we get another shot?
This is to assume that Burnham forces through a shift to the Left. His agenda is sufficiently nebulous – and the forces against it sufficiently strong – that it won’t survive contact with Downing Street. He might be more political than Keir Starmer - hardly difficult - but is he really any more prepared? The indication that Shabana Mahmood will head to the Treasury rather than Ed Miliband already suggests a Burnham premiership may change far less than his devotees hope. Whatever bounce he enjoys could soon be smothered by the same malaise that did for his predecessors.
Voters keep voting for change and not getting it. Even if he takes our Director General’s advice, the evidence that Burnham can radically improve living standards and revive trust in our decayed political system in three short years is severely lacking. We might end up with Starmerism with a Northern twang – as with James Callaghan replacing Harold Wilson, a little more activity and affability at the centre, but no departure from the underlying stagnation. Less of a crisis, just a slow sinking into the sea. Is that worse? At least a Burnham implosion would bring things to a head.
But then as with Rishi Sunak replacing Liz Truss, we might find ourselves with Rachel Reeves reinstalled in No. 10 by the year’s end, batting out time until 2029. I like the Stone Roses and the Smiths, but I’m not sure I can take any more mentions of glass ceilings. Either way, it’s all so wearily familiar. Manchester, so much to answer for…
What we’re reading
Great minds…Over at The View from Cullingworth, Simon Cook is in tune with Economic Affairs, arguing that Andy Burnham’s attack on the Thatcher era reflects not a genuine economic analysis but the enduring influence of a powerful left-wing mythology about the former Prime Minister among Gen X lefties. Like many middle-class Labour figures of his generation, Andy Burnham’s idea of the 1980s comes from popular culture and is aimed at Labour’s ageing membership.
Permanent problem. For The Critic, Arthur Reynolds makes the case that the UK’s permanent secretaries are products of a Whitehall system that rewards administrative conformity and political dexterity over expertise or delivery. Career civil servants may provide valuable continuity, but their incentives favour maintaining the status quo rather than reforming failing systems. Whitehall needs far greater cognitive diversity and stronger specialist leadership.
Tariff trip-up. Wolfgang Munchau has argued over at UnHerd that calls for wide-ranging European tariffs on Chinese imports are a misguided attempt to mirror Donald Trump’s trade policy without taking heed of Europe’s far weaker strategic position. While wrong-headed regardless, a tariff war would inflict greater damage on Europe than on China since the EU is more dependent on Chinese supply chains. Europe should focus on strengthening its own competitiveness.
Nolan principles. A quick diversion into the world of cinema via Reason and Peter Suderman. He argues that Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey cements his position as Hollywood’s leading liberal humanist filmmaker, an epic that is neither ‘woke’ nor reactionary but focused on the fragility of civilisation. Only through courage, duty and flawed human leadership can a liberal social order survive against chaos – a theme also taken up in The Dark Knight trilogy, Interstellar and Oppenheimer.
Back to Burnham. Finally, our Director General has said in his Telegraph column that Andy Burnham could deliver stronger economic growth in a Labour-friendly way. Without needing large spending cuts, he could pursue a series of supply-side reforms that would meet relatively little political resistance, as outlined in the letter in yesterday’s Economic Affairs e-mail. Structural reforms, rather than higher public spending, provide the best route to reversing years of weak growth.
“On Saturday, *I* went to see The Odyssey.”
Who is I? Unusual for an IEA article not to name its author.