On Burnham's Blueprint

There was one occasion during Keir Starmer's leadership that I felt a frisson of hope. That was during Gordon Brown's report back on his commission on the UK's constitution. Its devolutionary agenda and programme of, by Labourist standards, radical reforms set out a convincing plan of state modernisation. But because nice things aren't allowed in politics, nearly all of was decanted into the memory hole. But not before Starmer had publicly endorsed the proposals.

And here we are again. Andy Burnham's speech at the People's Museum was very good. No more pregnant pauses between short sentences for sound bites, no more dead-eyed staring at the camera, no prevarication. From a delivery point of view, Burnham spoke like most people, and came across plainly, coherently and, at times, passionately. Labour MPs versed in the Blair-era school of public speaking would do well to study this speech. Though putting on a Manchester accent might be too much.

What matters most is the content. And as far as making the right signals went, the boxes were duly ticked. Devolution, which was trailed in the pre-speech period, got a strong push. Whitehall obstructionism will vanish as decision-making about economic strategy and education and skills priorities are to be pushed out to the regions. The centrepiece is Number 10 North, a relocation of significant government powers to Manchester. And, for the first time since Harold Wilson, Burnham will not be residing in Downing Street. What didn't get a prior shout out was his commitment to the biggest council house building programme ever. There was "public control" of utilities, and changes to business rates so smaller businesses, above all hospitality wins out. Public procurement will also require mandatory social value tests, so the majority of goods and services purchased by state institutions are sourced from within this country. The Preston model writ large, in other words. In all the talk was good, but does Burnham have the game to match it?

Burnham's "public control" formulation has attracted criticism. The Manchester model rests heavily on the Bee Network, where bus companies remain private and for-profit but operate under a regulated regime. They provide good coverage and regular service, and in exchange they have guaranteed markets supported by the public subsidy of the fare cap. This is what Burnham seems intent on introducing for the utilities. Here there is some Labourist pedigree. In his The Future of Socialism, the classic statement of post-war Labourism, Tony Crosland argued there was no need to make further inroads into private ownership because, effectively, the state had capital on a tight leash. The system worked for them, so why change it? Manchesterism is Croslandism, albeit with localist characteristics. The problem is, as Mathew Lawrence writes in his recent policy piece on the productive state, private capital in foundational parts of the economy run on different cycles of investment and return than state capital. Which makes them inefficient where end users are concerned, and therefore should be nationalised. So while Burnham's Croslandism might work for the relatively small scale of Manchester's bus network, expecting the same for much larger and complex utilities infrastructure might be wishful thinking.

The reluctance to nationalise is not hard to fathom. It's for the same reason that this government and its New Labour predecessor were far from keen - it's the message it sends to capital. Burnham, presumably, would like the inward investment to carry on coming. But far from the animal spirits of capitalist myth, in actuality it's cagey, brittle, and terrified that changes in the overall regime of accumulation will see it underperform or leave it out of pocket. Less Scrappy Doo, more Scooby Doo. Public control sounds good to Labourist audiences, while the refusal to nationalise shows Burnhamism isn't about to make substantive modification to class relations. Also why he continues to stress fealty to the fiscal rules. This is not socialism, it's a typical social democratic compromise with capital.

Second, the Greens criticised Burnham for not mentioning the climate. Which is an omission, given the weather we've just had. By way of a reply, you could say it was there between the lines in the stiff about building resilience and making Britain energy independent. But that is not good enough. Outside of Reform, the Tories, and Facebook oddballs, the vast majority of the public are on board on climate change and understand the need for the green transition. Talking about it openly puts the right at a massive disadvantage, and could consolidate parts of Labour's coalition that Starmer's leadership have frittered away.

The biggest question about this speech is will Burnham actually deliver it? Certainly, he sounds more sincere, and he knows how to fire up those with bits of Labourism left in their souls. But we've had one Labour leader who lied through their teeth as they made their pledges, and then over the years tipped each one into the wheelie bin. Burnham offers a vision, a road map to a reformed state, a better functioning economy, more opportunities and, unusually for a contemporary politician, a kinder future too. If Burnham delivers this plan he will have saved Labour's bacon and can look forward to winning the next election. If he abandons it for whatever reason and defaults back to where we are now, then he, his party, and his brand of politics are done.

Image Credit