Burnham Makes his Move

In true Stalinist fashion at Labour Party Conference his is the name that should be avoided. He is the ‘regional politician’ who is more concerned about his ‘personal options’. Burnham is a good mayor of Manchester but should he not be completing his mandate for the people there? Then he is gambling with the nation’s financial security with his Liz Truss approach to borrowing. This is not the time for navel gazing and internal disruption. The party needs unity so that Sir Keir can renew the nation, defeat the newly anointed enemy, Farage, and more importantly turn the polls around. The problem for the Labour apparatus is that given the dire straits they are in it is hard for the unwanted guest to be ignored by the delegates and the media.

Just like all the leadership contenders for British political parties that have ever existed, Burnham has to tease and hint as a substitute for openly saying he wants to replace Kier Starmer as leader of the Labour party. So in his statements this week he says he would put himself at the disposal of the Labour government to help in any way. He almost sorrowfully then says he knows a number of Labour MPs were asking him during the summer to stand against Starmer. Maybe the coyness will allow him to withdraw gracefully if his manoeuvres end up going nowhere.

Why is he moving now?

There are genuine political differences over the direction the Labour government should go. It is not just a clash of personalities. What has moved him to start to pull the trigger is the rebellion by over a 100 MPs against the cuts to Personal Independence Payments (PIP) which led to a humiliating government U turn. To launch a leadership bid he needs 80 MPs. It is no accident that he is a major sponsor of the new Mainstream current recently established inside Labour to bring together the soft left, the centre and beyond into a movement of ‘radical realism’. This current could provide the team needed to organise his bid. Lucy Powell is also a leading member of Mainstream and her performance in the deputy leadership contest will provide Burnham with some indication of his chances. Presumably his original plan was to wait for the likely catastrophic election results next May before throwing his hat in the ring. However the record disapproval ratings for both Keir Starmer and his government and well-founded fears from new MPs that they could be in for just one term is accelerating events.

Another factor that is particularly important in his North West region is the continued rise of Reform UK. Again this is a fair enough political reaction from Burnham. He thinks that the response of Labour to the Farage surge is not working and the failure of its narrative to cut through means that without a change Reform UK will get into government. Today he talked about an existential threat to Labour. The left would agree with him on this – John McDonnell has been saying this long before Burnham raised it.

Burnham’s response to Farage on migration is rather unclear. He attacks Farage stating that the effect of Brexit has meant Britain lost control of immigration, which it had under the EU framework. This is clearly not a principled defence of migrants and still focuses on controlling migrants as the main message. He scarcely takes up the migrant issue in all his recent statements and interviews.

Of course the advantage of being an elected mayor—as we saw with Boris Johnson—is that you have a decent platform to develop a popular profile without being contaminated by being part of a toxic government. He has been elected 3 times and won 60% of the vote so he has a popular mandate, albeit from a low turnout election. You do not control enough of a budget to be accused of austerity, yet you can carry out some useful policies on transport; Burnham has improved the public transport system in Manchester.

Becoming a contender is not so easy

One obstacle Burnham faces is that he would need to become an MP to stand for leader. Sources do not agree about MPs willing to stand down for him. Previously the thinking was that Manchester MPs Andrew Gwynne (suspended from Labour) or ailing Graham Stringer were available but LabourList journalist, Emma Burnell, reports today that both are denying this scenario. The Labour National Executive Committee would also have to okay the deal and the right wing have a majority there.

Even if he were to sort out a seat there is a risk that Reform UK could put a spanner in his works by springing another bye election victory. Certainly he is popular among Labour member and voters in his region but it is not certain that his ratings among all voters are stronger than other probable candidates like Wes Streeting. All that King of the North stuff does not necessarily run so well in London or Essex. MPs might not appreciate some of his North versus the capital spiel, particularly the plan to increase property taxes in London.

Although many MPs are not as loyalist as they were a year ago it might be still too early for them to want to ditch a leader who did give them a big majority. You would have thought they would wait until the May 26 elections. Starmer is hoping conference speeches and some progressive new policies like ending the two child benefit cap will head off any challenge.

Impact of his victory or defeat

If Burnham were to stand and win it would have some political consequences. Undoubtedly it would stem the flow of those remaining socialists towards Your Party or the Greens. He might even try and get Corbyn—who never really wanted to leave—back in. Already Mainstream is trying to convince activists that it is still worth staying and fighting. On the other hand if his brand of soft left centrism were to be beaten it might have the opposite effect, particularly if the new left party recovers from its early shambles and becomes a real force. If you are condemned to being in Labour under a regime led by Streeting and dominated by Morgan McSweeney, would you really (as a socialist) just keep plodding on if Your Party becomes a credible challenger, including on the electoral level?

Clearly Starmer and the Labour Party right are concerned about a Burnham challenge. They will also be waiting to see if their candidate, Brigit Phillipson sees off Lucy Powell who is backed by the Manchester mayor. Burnham of course would be a stronger candidate than Powell since unlike her he has not been in the cabinet. The right wing might even consider Phillipson as a stronger option than Streeting who might not win the membership. Steven Reed was brought out as the attack dog against Burnham, he was one of the right wing team in Labour Together who plotted long term against Corbyn and for Starmer. The right wing dislike Burnham because they feel he was too soft on Corbyn after losing to him in his second leadership bid. They fear Burnham because he can pass much more as a ‘man of the people’ than Starmer, the staid barrister/manager, ever could.

A shift to the left – on paper

Although he is using slightly more left populist language today, Burnham is not dissimilar to Starmer in changing his political profile to fit the faction in power in Labour. A Blairite, then a Brownite, he even accepted a job as shadow Home Secretary under Corbyn. Today he is inveighing against Westminster contrasting it with the solid Labour values he sees in the North West, despite being fully part of the Westminster bubble until he left to become Mayor of Greater Manchester. He was a special adviser at 28; an MP at 31; and a cabinet minister at 38. Much like the platitudes you can read in the Mainstream platform of radical realism he talks today of being neither blue labour or soft left, but in favour of “aspirational socialism” (whatever that is). In his New Statesman interview he puts it like this:

“consensual, business-friendly socialism that seeks to retake public control of all essential services, from housing to transport, in order to make life “doable” for those trapped in the insecure world of Britain’s outsourced Serco economy.”

Property speculators have done very well out of the Manchester boom, but Burnham has not significantly changed the gross inequality that exists in the Manchester region. We should not believe all the hype about getting people into work through his various projects. They are not without use but have a limited overall impact.

On paper he is talking to the left of the Starmer government, which has refused to extend public control over infrastructure or essential services in favour of a strategic alliance with capital and corporate management (c/f the private/public partnership proposed for the new health centres). If he were to lead a government bringing water, energy, rail and housing back under public control then this would be a definite (and welcome) break with the neo-liberalism of this government. He also correctly supports proportional representation. Burnham even says he would be open to working with Jeremy Corbyn. This sort of language is new for him.

On foreign policy he also differentiates himself from the government, criticising how it relates to Trump and openly talks about the negative consequences of Brexit. On migrants he is more positive than the government but talks about overhauling asylum policy. During this long interview article there is no mention of Palestine which has had a huge impact on the Labour Party. Neither does he mention the attack on democratic rights represented by the proscription of Palestine Action. So there are limits to his newfound radicalism.

To his credit he does argue for a more pluralist Labour Party and he rather naively thinks that if Lucy Powell wins the deputy leadership, Downing Streets’ iron grip on the party will loosen.

Should the left support him?

His victory would shift the line of the government away from its most extreme neo-liberal policies. If the choice was him or a right-wing figure like Streeting, it would be ultra left to say there was no difference. There might even be a basis for a new left party to support any progressive measures a Burnham led government would take, such as his proposals to have a new level of 50 percent taxation or on public ownership. We would have to see if his language for a leadership campaign were to be translated into government policies – we have been here before with Starmer’s 10 Corbyn continuity pledges. Whatever happens Burnham’s move into a higher gear will make the Labour conference marginally more interesting.

But overall he would be pulling socialists away from developing a new form of politics with a much sharper anti-capitalist and greener potential represented by Your Party and Zack Polanski’s Greens. His politics is firmly based in gradual parliamentary reform, another version of Starmer’s strategic partnership with business.

We should build the new left party, compete electorally with Labour and build self organisation outside parliament. At the same time it is sensible to continue to work alongside socialists remaining in Labour who are pushing people like Burnham to promote progressive policies.