Unless he filed his papers in time for the by-election nomination, the King of the North is unlikely to challenge Keir for the iron throne of LOTO. But why, why Andy Burnham? How has he become the great hope of the parliamentary left? Diane recalls the Blairite figure who entered the field back in the 2010 contest. His only real departure from the orthodoxy then was resurrecting the S word, which had then been in exile since His Blairness assumed leadership in 1994. Then following a period as shadow education secretary and then health which he acquitted to much applause, he entrered the 2015 contest as the heir presumptive. Versus the dull, Brownist continuity of Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall's liberalism, Andy was destined to be the left candidate. Until Jeremy Corbyn and 200,000 new members interrupted proceedings. The subsequent campaign saw Andy zig-zag from hard right authoritarian positions to a fuzzy, ill-defined leftish Labourism. It was an erratic affair, but to his credit he served in Corbyn's shadow cabinet and did not join in the failed coup. After winning the mayoralty of Greater Manchester with ease, winding the clock forward to last Autumn Andy reminded Labour that another opposition was possible by actually opposing the Tories and winning wider support on this basis.
Some might suggest that if Andy Burnham is the answer, then Labour are asking some pretty poor questions. But this is where so-called Starmerism has led us. As the organised political expression of the labour movement, the party remains the best means, the only means for socialists to get elected in England and Wales. And where they have they can, like Salford, like Preston, made a real difference. No amount of Twitter tantrums, pop up parties or angry, vengeful thinking changes these facts of political life. Nor does the gnashing of teeth alter the character of the current leadership, who aren't going to disappear under a barrage of barbed tweets but are by accident and design driving the party off a cliff.
Burnham's faults are legion. He's not a socialist, he doesn't believe in democracy at the point of production, and as a rule is as bad as the mainstream of the parliamentary party on foreign affairs. But unlike Keir Starmer, Andy does understand the labour movement - at least to a degree. His politics on economics, health, education, and local government are soft left, appreciates the importance of the union link, and knows Labour can only win if it appears sufficiently Labourist. The most basic insight one can have about the party and its "offer", and it's beyond the ken of Starmerism's grown-ups-in-the-room. And, as much as it grates the Blairites and those for whom Keir Starmer is eminently electable if only the electors would vote for him, Andy Burnham is a much more experienced politician, is sure footed and understands politics, is much better at it, and possesses a certain charisma that has otherwise eluded the Labour MPs of his generation. As well as the Labour leader himself.
This is far from ideal, but Andy Burnham keeps open the possibility of Labour as a party of our class, warts and all. And with it the possibility of it becoming a vehicle for these interests. Keir Starmer, if he continues as he is - and the farcical appointment of Deborah Mattinson as "head of strategy" underlines the kamikaze direction - will end up destroying it, or shoving the party so far down a hole it can never climb out of. Unike Diane and the Campaign Group, we don't need to wait for Batley and Spen. Keir Starmer has shown his course and unwillingness to deviate, and therefore cannot be removed soon enough. And if Andy Burnham, in or out of parliament, and his proxies are the means of achieving this, so be it.
Image Credit
We don't need another lukewarm pretender.
ReplyDeleteThe 1963 Harold Wilson de nos jours ?
ReplyDeleteGiven the choice I say stick with Starmer.
ReplyDeleteAndy Burnham has been positioning himself for this since Corbyn became leader, his decision not to undermine Corbyn too much was pure positioning. He knew others would do the dirty work on his behalf.
At least Starmer was semi honest in his opposition, even if his methods at expressing his honest opinions were not.
Add to this Burnham's appalling response to COVID and I would even prefer David Milliband, as long as the devil allows him the time off.
«SCG would go into bat for Andy Burnham, [...] keeps open the possibility of Labour as a party of our class, warts and all. And with it the possibility of it becoming a vehicle for these interests»
ReplyDeleteIt would be very premature to waste A. Burnham in a doomed leadership, because property prices are still going up, and as long as they go up the Conservatives would have to do something truly horrifying to piss off well satisfied middle class speculators.
«Burnham's faults are legion. He's not a socialist, he doesn't believe in democracy at the point of production, and as a rule is as bad as the mainstream of the parliamentary party on foreign affairs. But unlike Keir Starmer, Andy does understand the labour movement - at least to a degree.»
My impression is that he is a committed socialdemocrat who hates thatcherism and what thatcherism has done to the "pushed behind" areas. Anyhow this is what what he said while losing to J. Corbyn in 2015 and during the "chicken coup" of 2016 (in which K. Starmer was an accomplice):
2015-08-13: «but he also praised Corbyn for having brought the contest to life. “The attacks we’ve seen on Jeremy misread the mood of the party because what people are crying out for is something different. They are fed up with the way Labour has been conducting policies in recent times,” he said.»
2016-06-16: «It is for our members to decide who leads our Party & 10 months ago they gave Jeremy Corbyn a resounding mandate. I respect that & them»
By saying those two things, and remaining in the J. Corbyn shadow cabinet, he has pretty much burned his bridges with the Militant Mandelsoncy and is likely regarded by them as a "dangerous trot". That must also be why he has gone back to the north, and also to avoid becoming involved with poisonous PLP politics.
«Versus the dull, Brownist continuity of Yvette Cooper»
ReplyDeleteOh no oh no: the politics of Yvette Cooper are not brownist, they are determinedly mandelsonian, even if she was counted as part of the brownist faction. I cannot imagine being said of Y. Cooper what was said of G. Brown:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/rachelsylvester/3556538/Brown-and-the-conservatory-building-classes.html
“Although Mr Brown talks a lot about aspiration, he means it in the sense that people at the bottom of the pile should be able to get to the middle, rather than that those in the middle should aspire to get a little bit further towards the top. [...] He is focusing on what he recently called the “squeezed middle” because he knows that the aspirational voters who supported Tony Blair have turned away from him. But the phrase he has chosen is telling: Gordon is interested in the middle classes only if he thinks they are “squeezed” — and therefore joining the ranks of the poor who have concerned him most for all his life.”
Note: The quote repeats the usual fantasy of “the aspirational voters who supported Tony Blair” when it is pretty obvious from the plummeting votes for New Labour in 2001 and 2005 that those "aspirational voters" did not support T. Blair, and there was a surge in votes in 1997 not because of him, but because of circumstances (before his death Labour had polled higher under J. Smith, and largely because of the property and jobs crash of the 1990s rather than because of J. Smith either).
«We don't need another lukewarm pretender.»
ReplyDeleteMy favourite disposable/ablative leader to replace Keir Starmer for a couple of years would be Owen Smith. A bit because it would be funny, but also because after all the soft left and the Militant Mandelsoncy proposed him in 2016, so how could they oppose him now? I can imagine many much worse apparatchiks and neoliberals. He might even grow into the role :-).
Owen Smith is - just like Burnham - no longer a Labour MP, however.
ReplyDeleteSlight problem?
«Burnham's faults are legion. He's not a socialist, he doesn't believe in democracy at the point of production, and as a rule is as bad as the mainstream of the parliamentary party on foreign affairs. But unlike Keir Starmer, Andy does understand the labour movement - at least to a degree.»
ReplyDeleteSo this is what its come to Phil, you'd support a labour leader in full cognisance that they'd likely participate in the murder of foreign workers in service of British capital? All because he might be slightly better for the workers movement in the UK? Perhaps that's the price you're willing (other people) to pay. Call me a naive Second Internationalist, but that doesn't sound very internationalist (or socilaist) to me.
Do you have any red lines at all? Or are they all domestic ones? Personally I think supporting a leader knowing they would support an imperialist war makes one somewhat responsible should that come to pass.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised - the labour left has mostly been willing to make this trade off. I just thought - again naively - that a former Marxist would have at least some principles. Looks like I seriously underestimated how much lesser-evilism really is the road to hell.
Terrible as Burnham's past record is, I can see more possibility of him opposing a war (if there was sufficient pressure on him to do so) than of Starmer opposing one. Starmer seems so desperate to distance himself from the left, to present himself as a "patriot" (as right-wing politicians and media define that word), and to not oppose the actual politics of the Tory government that he would leap at the chance to either support, or abstain from opposing, any war the government might choose to involve itself in.
ReplyDeleteOf course, "better than Starmer" is an incredibly low bar. It's like saying that a slap in the face is "better" than a kick in the balls. Perhaops we should be demanding something a little bit better than either?