Wow. Ian, this is brutal. Don’t disagree, but ouch!
I listened to Wes Streeting’s long interview with New Statesman and was impressed. Was struck by how he described leading as a solo or small group action- not by committee. Hard agree.
I’d pick Wes over Burnham. But then, I was looking forward to a Starmer govt in 2024 and voted Lib Dem in 2010 (leading to the coalition), so clearly my political instincts are duff!
I'm not sure why anyone would give David Cameron a break. An upper middle class Tory-Boy facsimile of Tony Blair. The disaster of the Triple Lock and rather than having the guts to throw out the EU phobics he misguided the Conservatives into a referendum. Then he walked off. He may have looked and sounded like the part, but did this man have any other qualities?
This is missing the point of Burnham's return. He is not the 'prodigal son' having seen the error of his ways in abandoning the Westminster fray. To say he is a people pleaser and 'soft in the middle' is to overlook the fact that he has had a decade of experience as Mayor of Greater Manchester, confirming what he already believed, that centralised government no longer works, if it ever did for people 'up North'.
He is absolutely firm on that and, whilst it is difficult to pin down 'Manchesterism', it is clearly not business as usual at Westminster. Burnham will not be interested in playing that game. For historical precedents you need to look to someone like J.B. Priestley and his English Journey. If anyone can deliver levelling up, Burnham can.
Secondly, you are underestimating Burnham's capacity to pull together and hold together a team. You are right to stress that party management and being able to hold the ring as PM between Cabinet colleagues and different departments are 2 of the crucial competences.
Burnham can inspire loyalty and he has learned how to be an effective player-manager.
Thirdly, based on personal experience of working with him on welfare reform and mental health across Greater Manchester, I would say that Burnham was quick to grasp that the complexity of the problem required a more complex policy solution than Lord Layard's one size fits all CBT-first approach, or DWP's blunt 'work-first' approach, that were tried and failed to work. Greater Masnchester's Working Well scheme delivered far better results (getting over 20% of people on disability benefits back into sustained employment) than anything else before it or since.
This is the single most important policy problem - not defence funding - that he must now solve before the next election. He would do well to keep Alan Milburn and Pat McFadden in place and drive further on their reform agenda, using what he has learned on the ground as Mayor.
Finally, it isn't just events. Its luck. I asked the late, great Jeremy Heywood which PM of the 4 he worked for (Blair, Brown, Cameron, May) did he rate highest. I expected him to say what I would say (and you, too) - Blair. He gave a civil servant's answer: Brown, followed by May. They were utterly dedicated to putting the interests of the country first in every decision they made - he told me - and this sets the direction from the top that enables the rest of government to work.
Of course, Jeremy was fully aware of their weaknesses and mistakes. But they were not bad Prime Ministers - they were Prime Ministers who came into office dealing with immense bad luck that would have defeated both Blair and Thatcher too. (The 2008 crash and Brexit vote).
What Burnham needs now more than anything, given that it is clear he will be our next Prime Minister is .... a good World Cup.
Back when an arts minister used to attend the T S Eliot prize and in exchange for having a 5 min platform, to pretend how committed the current govt was to the arts, we were allowed a beautiful room eg Lancaster House to host the ceremony...2009 saw Andy Burnham join us and before he spoke he told me how important poetry had been to him as a schoolboy, especially Plath, and how proud he had been of his shelf of Faber collections..so perhaps not a sliver ice in his heart but there is poetry.
This is not the first time you have referred to the UK's 'exceptionally high stock of public housing' compared to other European countries. Different kinds of social housing make precise comparisons difficult. But broadly speaking, I think you will find that France, Denmark, the Netherlands and Austria all have a higher proportion of social housing than the UK?
John Oliver did a segment on this last week, praying that Burnham would be elected, however bad he may be, because the far right parties are so very much worse, with Farage looming. We in Canada have had our share of lunkhead leaders, but right now, we have Mark Carney. The left is turning on him because he's more and more centre-right - he is a banker, after all. But with the unbelievable chaos he's dealing with, inside the country and out, especially with the lunatic-in-chief to the south holding our economy for ransom, I think at the moment we could not have a better leader. Lucky, for once. Condolences to my British friends and relatives.
I agree with all this, I also wonder if as our PM's have got worse, the job has also got harder. Those bond markets, international regulation, international migration, globalisation including AI. All these things are totally out of the control of Parliament. Burnham's wittering about not being in hock is a symptom of this problem. Plus the existing commitments of the state (pensions, welfare, etc), which have grown and grown the longer the state has existed, mean there is just so little room for manoeuvre. These problems are not at all unique to Britain, and in fact was the thesis of Mancur Olson in The Rise and Decline of Nations. His point is that the longer you have a stable state, the more entrenched interest groups take a bigger and bigger share of the spoils. It takes a good war or revolution to reset things, which isn't anybody's idea of a good time.
Part of being a leader is the art of being able to influence even when you don’t have control. You can at least stake out a consistent position, which I don’t think any recent PM has been able to do.
PMs in the 70s had a pretty severe lack of control - that was a hard job - and I think we’d kill to have someone like Callaghan in charge right now. I don’t think we’re in a uniquely difficult and bleak period of British history, there might be a lower ceiling in the maximum effectiveness a modern PM can have compared to the past but we’re nowhere near reaching it currently.
Yes all true. PM's in the 70 also tried to control things (like prices & incomes) that we have to our benefit realised are beyond the ken of mere mortals.
I looked at his top albums interview with The Quietus and it’s very default bloke - the Smiths, Stone Roses, Beatles, Radiohead-but-OK-Computer. Indie, but the stuff that has become the official narrative of how British music progressed.
Starmer, I had more musical affection for going with ‘You Can’t Hide Your Love Forever’ - Orange Juice before The Hit. The Burnham equivalent would have been going with a Fall album (he says he saw them at the Hacienda, he didn’t say he liked them) or Magazine. Something that shows a little hinterland, of not worrying ‘will that make me look weird’.
Which is a way of saying that having any kind of half-decent musical taste is probably a disqualification for the job. It needs someone motivated by big abstract ideas in macroeconomics and international relations, and as you say, a sliver of ice - or if not that, a level of ego, a Blair level of self-belied.
Johnson and the absolutely bloody weird and posh Farage show you don’t have to be in any way normal to be seen as ‘in touch’.
Overall I agree. I also think that, in the unlikely event he did become PM, Farage would suffer a similar fate. We have a public who want instant results, and don’t want to hear some truths.
The Rhondda valley was barely occupied until late 19th century, at which point thousands walked or rode there to work mines - for maybe 4 generations.
Other than as dormitory towns for Cardiff, it now has little economic purpose, but people have become very wed to ideas about where they are from, some idea they have a right to stay there, and that government can make it work - even as the family tree can show big moves every few generations.
I lived through the demolition of Manchester in the 70s and 80s, and its rebirth at the end of the 80s / early 90s as the template model for urban regeneration. It’s a great city, but that urban prescription can’t work for the whole UK.
I hope you're wrong. I also find it hard to disagree. Even more reason for there to be a leadership contest, however indulgent in looks. At the very least make him stare his case, address major policy areas and face a few challenging audiences. I've been a big fan of Streeting for years. He seems to have the right temperament, is a terrific communicator, isn't afraid to upset his party or its members. And tragically never going to get elected. But Burnham would have to put up a bit of a fight against him.
Can't disagree on Burnham's flaws, but at the moment the alternatives look even worse.
Wes Streeting strikes me as significantly better in terms of his understanding of the challenges his party and our country faces - and with some coherent ideas about solutions. But... he just doesn't look or sound prime ministerial. That might seem trivial, but in our post-literate, vibes-based age the audio-visual *matters*. Mahmood may be impressive in ways I've not yet seen, but her "hard man" stance on immigration has ceded the framing of the issue to Reform.
So, like you, I cross my fingers and hope Burnham exceeds our lack of expectations.
Wow. Ian, this is brutal. Don’t disagree, but ouch!
I listened to Wes Streeting’s long interview with New Statesman and was impressed. Was struck by how he described leading as a solo or small group action- not by committee. Hard agree.
I’d pick Wes over Burnham. But then, I was looking forward to a Starmer govt in 2024 and voted Lib Dem in 2010 (leading to the coalition), so clearly my political instincts are duff!
I thought I was quite nice!
I'm not sure I'd recover from a character demolition this total.
I'm not sure why anyone would give David Cameron a break. An upper middle class Tory-Boy facsimile of Tony Blair. The disaster of the Triple Lock and rather than having the guts to throw out the EU phobics he misguided the Conservatives into a referendum. Then he walked off. He may have looked and sounded like the part, but did this man have any other qualities?
This is missing the point of Burnham's return. He is not the 'prodigal son' having seen the error of his ways in abandoning the Westminster fray. To say he is a people pleaser and 'soft in the middle' is to overlook the fact that he has had a decade of experience as Mayor of Greater Manchester, confirming what he already believed, that centralised government no longer works, if it ever did for people 'up North'.
He is absolutely firm on that and, whilst it is difficult to pin down 'Manchesterism', it is clearly not business as usual at Westminster. Burnham will not be interested in playing that game. For historical precedents you need to look to someone like J.B. Priestley and his English Journey. If anyone can deliver levelling up, Burnham can.
Secondly, you are underestimating Burnham's capacity to pull together and hold together a team. You are right to stress that party management and being able to hold the ring as PM between Cabinet colleagues and different departments are 2 of the crucial competences.
Burnham can inspire loyalty and he has learned how to be an effective player-manager.
Thirdly, based on personal experience of working with him on welfare reform and mental health across Greater Manchester, I would say that Burnham was quick to grasp that the complexity of the problem required a more complex policy solution than Lord Layard's one size fits all CBT-first approach, or DWP's blunt 'work-first' approach, that were tried and failed to work. Greater Masnchester's Working Well scheme delivered far better results (getting over 20% of people on disability benefits back into sustained employment) than anything else before it or since.
This is the single most important policy problem - not defence funding - that he must now solve before the next election. He would do well to keep Alan Milburn and Pat McFadden in place and drive further on their reform agenda, using what he has learned on the ground as Mayor.
Finally, it isn't just events. Its luck. I asked the late, great Jeremy Heywood which PM of the 4 he worked for (Blair, Brown, Cameron, May) did he rate highest. I expected him to say what I would say (and you, too) - Blair. He gave a civil servant's answer: Brown, followed by May. They were utterly dedicated to putting the interests of the country first in every decision they made - he told me - and this sets the direction from the top that enables the rest of government to work.
Of course, Jeremy was fully aware of their weaknesses and mistakes. But they were not bad Prime Ministers - they were Prime Ministers who came into office dealing with immense bad luck that would have defeated both Blair and Thatcher too. (The 2008 crash and Brexit vote).
What Burnham needs now more than anything, given that it is clear he will be our next Prime Minister is .... a good World Cup.
Back when an arts minister used to attend the T S Eliot prize and in exchange for having a 5 min platform, to pretend how committed the current govt was to the arts, we were allowed a beautiful room eg Lancaster House to host the ceremony...2009 saw Andy Burnham join us and before he spoke he told me how important poetry had been to him as a schoolboy, especially Plath, and how proud he had been of his shelf of Faber collections..so perhaps not a sliver ice in his heart but there is poetry.
This is not the first time you have referred to the UK's 'exceptionally high stock of public housing' compared to other European countries. Different kinds of social housing make precise comparisons difficult. But broadly speaking, I think you will find that France, Denmark, the Netherlands and Austria all have a higher proportion of social housing than the UK?
His second leadership campaign was 2015. Not 2020
John Oliver did a segment on this last week, praying that Burnham would be elected, however bad he may be, because the far right parties are so very much worse, with Farage looming. We in Canada have had our share of lunkhead leaders, but right now, we have Mark Carney. The left is turning on him because he's more and more centre-right - he is a banker, after all. But with the unbelievable chaos he's dealing with, inside the country and out, especially with the lunatic-in-chief to the south holding our economy for ransom, I think at the moment we could not have a better leader. Lucky, for once. Condolences to my British friends and relatives.
I agree with all this, I also wonder if as our PM's have got worse, the job has also got harder. Those bond markets, international regulation, international migration, globalisation including AI. All these things are totally out of the control of Parliament. Burnham's wittering about not being in hock is a symptom of this problem. Plus the existing commitments of the state (pensions, welfare, etc), which have grown and grown the longer the state has existed, mean there is just so little room for manoeuvre. These problems are not at all unique to Britain, and in fact was the thesis of Mancur Olson in The Rise and Decline of Nations. His point is that the longer you have a stable state, the more entrenched interest groups take a bigger and bigger share of the spoils. It takes a good war or revolution to reset things, which isn't anybody's idea of a good time.
Part of being a leader is the art of being able to influence even when you don’t have control. You can at least stake out a consistent position, which I don’t think any recent PM has been able to do.
PMs in the 70s had a pretty severe lack of control - that was a hard job - and I think we’d kill to have someone like Callaghan in charge right now. I don’t think we’re in a uniquely difficult and bleak period of British history, there might be a lower ceiling in the maximum effectiveness a modern PM can have compared to the past but we’re nowhere near reaching it currently.
Yes all true. PM's in the 70 also tried to control things (like prices & incomes) that we have to our benefit realised are beyond the ken of mere mortals.
I looked at his top albums interview with The Quietus and it’s very default bloke - the Smiths, Stone Roses, Beatles, Radiohead-but-OK-Computer. Indie, but the stuff that has become the official narrative of how British music progressed.
Starmer, I had more musical affection for going with ‘You Can’t Hide Your Love Forever’ - Orange Juice before The Hit. The Burnham equivalent would have been going with a Fall album (he says he saw them at the Hacienda, he didn’t say he liked them) or Magazine. Something that shows a little hinterland, of not worrying ‘will that make me look weird’.
Which is a way of saying that having any kind of half-decent musical taste is probably a disqualification for the job. It needs someone motivated by big abstract ideas in macroeconomics and international relations, and as you say, a sliver of ice - or if not that, a level of ego, a Blair level of self-belied.
Johnson and the absolutely bloody weird and posh Farage show you don’t have to be in any way normal to be seen as ‘in touch’.
Overall I agree. I also think that, in the unlikely event he did become PM, Farage would suffer a similar fate. We have a public who want instant results, and don’t want to hear some truths.
The Rhondda valley was barely occupied until late 19th century, at which point thousands walked or rode there to work mines - for maybe 4 generations.
Other than as dormitory towns for Cardiff, it now has little economic purpose, but people have become very wed to ideas about where they are from, some idea they have a right to stay there, and that government can make it work - even as the family tree can show big moves every few generations.
I lived through the demolition of Manchester in the 70s and 80s, and its rebirth at the end of the 80s / early 90s as the template model for urban regeneration. It’s a great city, but that urban prescription can’t work for the whole UK.
I hope you're wrong. I also find it hard to disagree. Even more reason for there to be a leadership contest, however indulgent in looks. At the very least make him stare his case, address major policy areas and face a few challenging audiences. I've been a big fan of Streeting for years. He seems to have the right temperament, is a terrific communicator, isn't afraid to upset his party or its members. And tragically never going to get elected. But Burnham would have to put up a bit of a fight against him.
Can't disagree on Burnham's flaws, but at the moment the alternatives look even worse.
Wes Streeting strikes me as significantly better in terms of his understanding of the challenges his party and our country faces - and with some coherent ideas about solutions. But... he just doesn't look or sound prime ministerial. That might seem trivial, but in our post-literate, vibes-based age the audio-visual *matters*. Mahmood may be impressive in ways I've not yet seen, but her "hard man" stance on immigration has ceded the framing of the issue to Reform.
So, like you, I cross my fingers and hope Burnham exceeds our lack of expectations.