Source: The Conversation – UK
In his first 100 days in office, Andy Burnham has challenged the economic consensus shared by UK governments in recent decades and set up a prime ministerial office outside London with a remit to rewire the state and devolve power. He has also reopened the debate on Brexit and set in motion the biggest social house-building programme since the post-war period.
These are big moves for the prime minister, not unlike those proposed in the king’s speech a month after the 1945 Labour landslide. Then, the Attlee government set out a blueprint focused on nationalising key industries, creating a universal health service and expanding social security.
In some ways, the political bar today is not set very high. Burnham has been preceded by six prime ministers in ten years: Theresa May (1,106 days), constantly undermined by her own MPs; Boris Johnson (1,140 days), destroyed by his own dishonesty; Liz Truss (49 days), now a byword for policy disaster; Rishi Sunak (619 days), the leader behind the biggest Tory electoral defeat ever; and Keir Starmer (717 days), who conjured broad unpopularity out of a landslide election victory.
Burnham’s first task in office was therefore simply to look like he could stay there. His second task was to build upon one of the largest parliamentary majorities (currently 158) in the past century. Doing so has meant making big moves.
The most potent message that voters have sent to all politicians and parties is that they want to see tangible change. They are tired of austerity in its various versions; of relentless national decline; of the political state appearing to be incapable of delivering anything worthwhile; of having to live with the bad decisions of the past; and of identikit politicians who seem devoid of imagination.
Read more:
No lectern and the promise of a ‘new model’ – what we can learn from Andy Burnham’s speech
In his first speech as prime minister in Downing Street on July 20, Burnham proposed “making this moment a circuit-breaker for Britain, bringing forward the biggest changes in the last 40 years.” Not business as usual.
In his speech to the Labour party conference in September, Burnham spelled out what he meant by change. He told delegates that Britain had been on the “wrong path” for years, citing deindustrialisation, deregulation, privatisation, austerity and Brexit. He said this had created a country “run for vested interests” rather than in the public interest, stating that he was ready to do things his predecessors would not.
In that short section of the speech, he separated himself from both the policies and the stylistics of his six predecessors. First, in speaking about the past 40 years he was clearly referring to an era in which every policy, need and sentiment has had to defer to the rationale of the market. To challenge neoliberal doctrine in these times is in itself an act of radicalism.
Second, by stating openly that Brexit was an economic disaster he distanced himself from the isolationist fantasy to which UK prime ministers have felt forced to adhere since 2016. In a world of dangerously unreliable geopolitical blocs, renegotiating the settlement with European neighbours would point to a new relationship with reality.
Third, references in the same speech to “power held in too few hands” and the promise of a “new politics” speak to the possibility of decentralised state power. They also signal a fairer method of determining who will wield it. Such boldness has not marked the first 100 days of any British prime minister since Margaret Thatcher in 1979. Back then, proposals to sell off nationalised industries, break trade union power and give the market free rein within her first 100 days laid the groundwork for what would become Thatcherism.
The looming threats
Of course, the power to enact these big changes is not entirely in Burnham’s hands. In agreeing to stay within the fiscal rules established by its predecessors, as well as to meet the Nato target for defence spending, the new government is extremely constrained in how much money it can invest in public services.
The bond markets, traditionally hostile to the risk they perceive around policies shaped by social justice, stand as a threat to radicalism. The right-wing press has lost no time in casting Burnham as (alternately) incompetent and dangerous.
And at his heels, in the shape of Reform UK, is a mega-funded populist party. Its reputation and poll ratings are currently diminished, but it is constantly waiting in the wings to exploit any deflation of public mood.
That said, after 100 days Burnham remains the most popular party leader in the UK. His 46% approval rating comfortably beats those of Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch (33%), Reform’s Nigel Farage (25%) and Ed Davey of the Liberal Democrats (24%). This is the longest period in nearly ten years that a prime minister has gone without recording a negative net favourability rating. The British electorate is not used to feeling approval. Let’s see if it lasts.
Stephen Coleman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.