‘Death of neoliberalism’ or more of the same?
By William Locke
Challenging Ed Davey for the title of least subtle British political communicator, Andy Burnham is running; literally and figuratively. Captured by television cameras jogging alongside, bizarrely enough, the finest dual carriageways Greater Manchester has to offer, he had just spilled the worst kept secret in British politics; knowing a flailing Keir Starmer premiership was inexorably handing Britain over to a far-right Reform government, only he could save the country from the nightmarish prospect of a Farage premiership.
Of course, Burnham must first persuade the people of Makerfield to elect him as their MP; hardly an easy task in the leave-voting, Reform-curious constituency, which even in the heady days of July 2024 gave Farage’s party over 30% of the vote. Assuming, however, he does get the tap on the shoulder from the Makerfield electorate, Burnham’s hypothesis is likely correct; he’s the only major Labour figure with a positive approval rating and has genuinely endeared himself to the people of Manchester, a polar opposite to the incandescent rage which Keir Starmer incites in even the most mild-mannered of British voters. Ed Miliband, bless his heart, is still too much of a ‘north London geek’ to win over the electorate; Angela Rayner is still cast in the long shadow of her Stamp Duty scandal; Wes Streeting long ago burnt any remaining bridges with the Labour left. It has to be Burnham.
According to Burnham’s own campaign material, his economic agenda is unashamedly radical: “the death of neoliberalism”. Taking us on a guided tour of Ashton-in-Makerfield, he lamented the catastrophic effects of the Thatcherite economic agenda on towns across the north of England. In broadcast interviews, he’s willing to list precisely which industries he plans on bringing into state control; consultations, stakeholder analyses, all the endless procedures which prevent Whitehall from actually doing anything, be damned!
An insincere Damascene conversion designed to win over the hearts of Labour MPs and members disaffected by Labour’s lurch to the right
If Burnham is to be believed, he envisions nothing less than overturning the economic consensus which has constrained the imagination of Britain’s economic managers ever since Thatcher decisively smashed the Keynesian post-war consensus. It may just work. It’ll certainly bring the disaffected Green voters who handed Labour a bloody nose in the Gorton and Denton by-election back into the fold, while exposing Reform’s conspicuously employer-friendly economic policies to the economically marginalised voters who’ve flocked towards the party. The Conservatives, whatever relevance they still hold, will likely complain of ‘British Rail sandwiches’ and invoke memories of the Winter of Discontent, unaware that to most of the electorate these are now nothing but obscure political trivia.
To his opponents on the left like Your Party’s Zara Sultana, however, his policy agenda stands out like a sore thumb against the rest of his political career; an insincere Damascene conversion designed to win over the hearts of Labour MPs and members disaffected by Labour’s lurch to the right under Keir Starmer. Indeed, Burnham did enter politics as a special advisor under New Labour and associated himself with some of the most politically toxic elements of its legacy; voting for the Iraq War and supporting increased state control of the internet against the advice of civil liberties advocacy groups. In 2010, he maintained that he was proud to associate himself with the New Labour project.
Most damning, however, is a deeper analysis of ‘Manchesterism’; Burnham’s record as mayor, touted as a trial run for his national agenda. While there are certainly elements which speak to more radical instincts, such as the nationalised and widely popular Bee transport network, the story of Manchester’s dramatic regeneration is a distinctly neoliberal one.
Began under the leadership of Sir Richard Leese, who headed up Manchester City Council and oversaw the regeneration of its city centre after it was destroyed in 1996 by an IRA bomb, the transformation of Manchester from decaying post-industrial urban wasteland to emerging economic powerhouse was the work of what even Burnham acknowledges is “business-friendly socialism”. Take the Greater Manchester Baccalaureate, designed in collaboration with local businesses to provide children from deprived backgrounds with the skills employers desperately need. This is a textbook New Labour policy: promoting social justice by working with the private sector, instead of opposing it.
In the opinion of Andy Burnham’s left-wing opponents, it’s all an act, a clever rouse to win over the Labour electorate before slipping back into the well-worn economic conventions of British politics. I think they’re missing vital context. The Metro Mayoralties were the brainchild of George Osborne; is it really credible to believe that a role, whose powers were devised by the architect of the two-child benefit cap, would allow their incumbent to pursue radical left-wing economic reform? While Burnham is proud of the many genuine achievements of the New Labour government, dating back to his 2010 leadership run he has consistently called on his party to move closer towards its socialist roots.
What differentiates a politician like Burnham from Sultana is that he’s willing to work within a structure hostile towards some of his more radical instincts in the name of incremental, positive change; accepting a job in a New Labour cabinet did not prevent him from securing justice for the Hillsborough families, or a George Osborne mayoralty from improving the city’s public transport. Unlike Sultana, Burnham is a serious politician, genuinely dedicated to improving people’s lives; as Prime Minister, unrestrained by another’s agenda, we’ll see just how radical he can truly be.
Image: Rwendland via Wikimedia Commons
