Broadcaster Cristo Foufas explains what he thinks Andy Burnham really stands for
There’s a joke doing the rounds since Andy Burnham decided to re-enter Westminster politics.
A Blairite, a Brownite and a Corbynite enter a Manchester bar.
Because we now have a Prime Minister-in-waiting, who is likely to get the job with absolutely no scrutiny and no clear policy agenda.
All he’s done is come out with the same old meaningless platitudes we’ve heard time and again from this Labour Government.
‘Change’. ‘Hope’. ‘Working People’. ‘Fairness’. Oh, and one extra you always hear in a Burnham speech. ‘Buses’.
Yes, in case you live on Mars and haven’t heard him mention it at any opportunity, Andy Burnham brought buses into public ownership and capped their fares while serving as Mayor of Greater Manchester.
If I hear him mention buses once more, I am highly likely to throw myself under one.
Even prior to his victory in Makerfield, the unnecessary by-election, which has to be called out for the biggest display of self-indulgent political power-grabbing in years, we’ve already been subjected to more U-turns from Burnham than one of his prized double-deckers could manage.
For instance, Burnham has said previously he doesn’t think we should be in ‘hock’ to the bond markets.
Oh, until he decided the bond markets are quite important after all. We’ve heard how he’ll definitely follow Rachel Reeves’ fiscal rules.
He doesn’t appear to be able to remotely explain what those rules are but he’ll definitely follow them, nonetheless.
That’s aside from U-turns on single-sex spaces, which he used to believe should include trans people, and rejoining the EU, something he’s now against but just last year was in favour of.
None of this appeared to matter as he stomped home last Thursday with a huge majority in Makerfield, now putting him firmly on course to become PM.
This led to yet more of this new U-turned Andy Burnham at a victory rally he held in Ashton last Friday.
It was a full-on pitch of platitudes outlining a list of worthy objectives which were rather scant on detail.
More importantly, though, they appeared to argue against all of the decisions he was involved in when he was last in Government.
Andy Burnham Mark II would clearly be utterly furious with Andy Burnham Mark I if they ever met.
But it again begs the question, what does Andy Burnham actually stand for? And does his ability to be able to U-turn so easily show we’re heading for more of the same driverless nonsense we faced with Keir Starmer?
In Ashton, Burnham spoke about the “unfairness of the immigration system” and how “areas like this can end up like HMO Britain”.
All well and good, but he didn’t talk about abolishing taxpayer funding for HMOs for migrants, did he? He gave the distinct impression they’d just be moved to other parts of the country instead.
He is right, though; many people do see what’s happening with immigration as a whole as incredibly unfair.
However, bearing in mind that during the first nine years he was an MP – from 2001 to 2010 - when Labour were last in power – net migration to the UK was a staggering 2.1 million, this seems rather a hollow declaration.
And let's not forget he’d previously argued strongly against Shabana Mahmood’s plans to double the time it takes for migrants to qualify for indefinite leave to remain, claiming it would leave them “in a sense of limbo and unable to integrate”.
He’s now declared he supports this plan, to the point it’s widely expected he’d keep Mahmood as Home Secretary should he become PM.
The Greater Manchester Mayor also spoke about how the economic path of the last few decades hasn’t helped places in the North of England, declaring: “We’ve had an economic system for the last 40 years which hasn’t worked for places like Makerfield."
Recently, the potential Labour leader has also spoken about how neoliberal, Thatcherite policies need to change.
Again, Burnham was very happy to serve under Tony Blair, who was himself a leader so neoliberal in his economics that Margaret Thatcher once called Blair her "biggest achievement" after he continued her economic legacy under New Labour.
Continuing his criticism of the neo-liberalism he once seemingly supported, Burnham also spoke in Ashton of the need to re-industrialise the UK.
He said: “I want to see a new drive of re-industrialisation across the north of England and, indeed, the rest of the country."
This is all very worthy, but the last Labour Government Burnham served in saw manufacturing in the UK as a share of GDP fall from 18 per cent to just 10 per cent.
During the Thatcher years, which he seems to now lament so much, it fell by just three per cent.
Why wasn’t Andy Burnham talking about any of this then? Was it because at that point he wasn’t “King of the North”, but instead, wedded to Westminster in the Armani suits he previously declared he loved so much.
Of course, you’d never find ‘man of the people’ Andy in Armani now – the most bougie thing in his wardrobe he’s been pictured in recently are his trendy Birkenstock sandals.
Surely, with such changeable opinions, the more appropriate footwear would be flip-flops?
Burnham’s supporters claim the reason he’s changed his mind so much is nothing to do with his desperate bid for power, instead saying he’s been on a ‘political journey’.
Most ‘political journeys’ don’t involve completely altering one’s fundamental beliefs about literally everything.
He’s now changed his mind on the entire economic model of the UK from a Thatcherite monetarist ideology to that of the very socialism she loathed: our being EU members or not, immigration – the list is seemingly endless.
If he’d taken that ‘journey’ by one of the buses he adores so much, he’d be thankful of the capped fares he introduced.
Finally, the Ashton Burnham rally repeatedly heard him deliver that big word Labour luvvies adore: “Change”.
We, of course, didn’t get any details on what that ‘change’, a word we are all now completely sick of hearing, would actually entail.
All we know, like one of those Burnham buses, is that change is the destination on the front. The timetable? The route? And how much do we all inevitably pay? As yet, not in service.
What we do know is that nothing at all about the parliamentary Labour Party will change. The backbenchers, so against reducing public spending and in favour of the bloated benefits bill and eye-watering debt we’re all being subjected to, will all remain the same.
And whilst it’s clear Andy Burnham is prepared to change his views to placate the left of the party at the drop of a hat, there’s no evidence there’s any other type of change coming.
And this is the most worrying thing. If that word ‘change’ does mean anything, it’ll be taking the country further left. No wonder that’s now his pitch.
The Labour backbenchers won’t let him do anything else. And that’s the huge problem we all face, yet the Labour Party doesn't seem to be able to. It’s left-wing policies which have got us into this mess.
We already have the highest taxes in history. We have Government debt, which Labour has added to, meaning last month we paid nearly £12billion in debt interest alone, the highest level in history.
That’s four times the budget Burnham has been working with for the whole of Manchester that we’re paying just in interest per month. Is anyone else worried?
Add to that, tax rises every ten days since July 2024 when they were elected.
We’ve seen huge pay rises for unionised industries and a workers' rights bill, which caused bosses not to want to hire, and anti-business national insurance rises.
The Government has interfered in the rental market, causing rents to soar, and we’ve seen government interference in our online activities too.
Plus free handouts of school meals, and that benefits bill is about to reach £400billion by the end of the decade.
If more of that is the “change” Andy Burnham is talking about, that will be a change for the worse.
The very last thing the UK now needs is another lanyard-wearing career politician who doesn’t believe in anything but himself.
Let’s not forget Andy Burnham has never had a job outside of politics. Not one.
He just wants power for power’s sake, will say anything to get it, and will change his beliefs at the drop of a hat when it suits him; he demonstrates the entire problem with Westminster politics.
The only ‘change’ we need is one which a general election will bring about.