Newsletter #81: Andy Burnham's soggy mess of chips and gravy

Those who have tried the delicacy know it only has a fleeting moment of edibility

Good afternoon.

It has been another big week in British politics. Today, we look at the team being built around Andy Burnham, Labour Party coalition-building, and where it all might lead.

This newsletter’s agenda: Andy Burnham’s soggy mess of chips and gravy (full feature).

Andy Burnham’s soggy mess of chips and gravy

Yesterday, amidst all of the inherent manoeuvring in moments such as these, Andy Burnham announced that he will move part of the No. 10 operation to Manchester. The hour of the Spud Bros is upon us. Manchester is, in fact, the city in which I grew up and retain a begrudging affinity for — more than anyone, I loathe what Crackadilly Andy has done to it in unleashing the horrors of the smash burger joint, men’s mental health, Bumble Bee Buses and all the rest on a city already predisposed towards mushy chips-and-gravy sentimentalism.

Pimlico Journal has been rather sanguine about what Burnhamism will mean both for the country and the prospects of the right in opposition. There has been much consternation that Burnham will cause a financial crisis via a Chancellor Miliband, go nuclear by forcing through electoral reform, or triggering an early general election on a polling high to damage the governing prospects of Reform. On a certain level, nuclear would be a wise strategy — if only Burnham and the Labour Party were conscious of the fact that this rebrand may temporarily change perceptions but will not meaningfully deliver the goods on the basic issues the public needs addressed. Issues of party discipline and ability to govern may well re-emerge faster than anyone currently anticipates.

Labour has temporarily fallen into line; there will be no leadership challenge from Wes Streeting (or Darren Jones with his half-hearted attempt to stick his head above the parapet), and everyone is now angling for a job in the new regime. As personnel goes, things are already rapidly moving in the direction I (as opposed to my well-meaning but mistaken colleague, George Spencer) anticipated — Burnham is taking tremendous caution not to spook the ‘Bond Vigilantes’, and seems likely to choose a candidate from the right of the party for Chancellor. In his (car-crash) profile with Ailbhe Rea, when asked about as directly as he could be for the format — he refused to give any answer on either his prospects for a promotion to the Exchequer or even offer a positive word (being ‘open-minded’ regarding North Sea oil) on Miliband’s Net Stupid Zero agenda. Miliband will see the absence of a substantial promotion as a great betrayal, given his own manoeuvres from within the cabinet to assist Burnham’s coronation.

This development is naturally pleasing to the City, who were unsurprisingly concerned about the possibility of Red Ed in No. 11. But in a curious moment of solidarity with financiers, the Unions have also fallen against Miliband — some days ago, the General Secretary of Unite, Sharon Graham warned that a Miliband chancellorship would be a ‘noose around the neck’ of jobs creation. Some on the left may now clearly be looking for an off-ramp from the Net Zero strategy, but Miliband will remain a powerful actor in the Labour Party and is resolute in his vision.

The direction of travel visible in Burnham’s most important staffing decision yet, bringing James Purnell on as chief of staff — a distinctly New Labour figure and current chief executive of Flint Global — has begun to worry the Labour left. He has also brought on as an advisor a former Bank of England official, associate of Prosper UK (a Tory-aligned think-tank) and Financial Times commentator, Andy Haldane, who is far from a socialist doctrinaire. Add to this Richard Hughes of the OBR, and Jim O’Neill, a crossbench peer and former Treasury minister under George Osborne. It is not fully clear what role they will have in drafting plans, but to the Socialist Campaign Group (SCG) faction in Labour, all of this reeks of a coming redo of Blairism. The team currently being built out would suit a Streeting Exchequer very well indeed. We have just seen how a left-‘technocratic’ government interacts with a Parliamentary Labour Party that is fundamentally unserious and ideologically incoherent — many of the same individuals who opposed welfare cuts simultaneously opposed Reeves’ efforts to find other ways to raise revenues, made governing impossible, and then complained that they were ‘unheard’ by the leadership. Having thrown their tantrum and ground down the highest testosterone Prime Minister in living memory to tears, they seem on course to repeat similar fights with mushy Andy’s new team.