
What Burnham seeks has nothing to do with genuine socialist politics (Photo: number10gov/Flickr)
Andy Burnham speech at the Labour Party conference confirmed what should have been clear from his surgical removal of Keir Starmer. Behind all the schmaltz, he is a bold and intelligent politician.
Nevertheless, what he’s seeking has nothing to do with genuine socialist politics.
Burnham showed he understands what happened at the last general election in July 2024. The huge parliamentary majority Starmer won then was a mirage, nowhere comparable the genuine Labour landslides Clement Attlee won in 1945, Harold Wilson in 1966 and Tony Blair in 1997.
The huge shift in parliamentary seats in 2024 is the kind of result the first-past-the-post election system delivers when party support fragments.
A five-party system emerged—Labour, Tories, Reform, Lib Dems and Greens. Indeed, it’s a seven-party system when you take into account the SNP and Plaid Cymru, but they aren’t competing for office at Westminster. So, how do you win in this set-up? Starmer’s mean and inept government showed, instead, how to lose.
But then the Gorton and Denton by-election in February added another ingredient to the mix. The Greens’ victory demonstrated it wasn’t inevitable that the far right would be the main beneficiary from Starmer’s collapse. A progressive alternative is possible. Burnham is trying to ensure that a rebranded Labour plays this role.
In his speech, he repeated his critique of the neoliberal reconstruction of British society under Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. This helps to polarise against a Tory party that, under Kemi Badenoch, is moving sharply in a Thatcherite direction.
Burnham, however, went beyond rhetoric and made three concrete proposals. First, to create a National Care Service comparable to the NHS. Second, to set up a national commission on electoral reform. And, third, to address “Britain’s long-term relationship” with the European Union (EU)—including, possibly, Burnham later clarified, rejoining.
This platform implies, as Robert Shrimsley of the Financial Times newspaper noted, “a shrewd political strategy, calculated to rebuild the electoral coalition on the left and then drive through voting reform in the explicit belief it will keep the right out”.
Opinion polls show that Reform UK is no longer the front-runner and that large numbers of left-of-centre voters are willing to vote tactically to keep Nigel Farage out of 10 Downing Street. The logic of Burnham’s package is a coalition with the Lib Dems, enthusiasts for both electoral reform and rejoining the EU.
Shrimsley also says “New Andy is unapologetically Old Labour” and wants “to wind back the clock”, presumably to the Britain of the 1950s and 1960s. This is nonsense.
Burnham proposes to help finance social care reform by amending the triple lock meant to protect state pensions. After April 2030, these will still rise by the higher of inflation or 2.5 percent, but will no longer be linked tightly to earnings.
As the Green economist James Meadway points out, “this is a cut in expected pensions to pay for social care. That is likely to be somewhat regressive—the winners are those who no longer have to sell a house to pay for care, but those losing out on the pension will include people who do not own their home or never need care.”
It is still a clever move. Breaking the Triple Lock means pain for poorer pensioners, but years away. It is also what big business and its echo chambers in the BBC and Institute of Fiscal Studies have been stridently demanding. Burnham is signalling to them that he can be “tough” when it comes to welfare spending.
In many ways the kind of policy shift he is making was pioneered by his foreign secretary, Ed Miliband, when he announced a ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements in Palestine. It generated a huge amount of noise, largely thanks to the furious reaction from Israel. This gave Miliband kudos from many in the Palestine movement. But it changed very little in Britain’s economic and security relationship with Israel.
This is the Burnham formula—a dramatic change in tone, but minimal change in reality. This makes a real left alternative ever more urgent.





