To what extent can a Labour government transform the nation? This question has long been posed by voters, journalists, and politicians, including those within the Labour party itself. The prevailing view has often been that Labour administrations lack the capability to fundamentally restructure the economy, significantly redistribute wealth, genuinely empower marginalized groups, or implement an ethical foreign policy without provoking the ire of influential stakeholders, ranging from wealthy British citizens to the U.S. government and global financial institutions.
This persistent belief, which has been internalized by some within the left as well as centrists and right-wing factions, has shadowed Labour governments from their inception in the 1920s to Keir Starmer’s recent, albeit unsuccessful, leadership. However, conventional wisdom can be misleading, particularly in unpredictable times like the present, where historical precedents may hold little weight.
During last year’s Labour conference, Andy Burnham faced widespread mockery for what many perceived as a poorly executed coup attempt for leadership. The media and Starmer’s cabinet largely dismissed his prospects of ever becoming Prime Minister. Yet, at this week’s unexpectedly crowded and perhaps overly optimistic conference, Burnham’s influential presence resonated similarly to Tony Blair’s during his early leadership phase, becoming a frequent point of reference throughout the event.
Burnham seems poised to leverage his influence—though it may be short-lived in today’s more fragmented political landscape—to tackle significant issues that the party has traditionally been advised to avoid. Topics such as electoral reform, social care, public intervention in struggling privatized services, the pension triple lock, and even rejoining the EU were all mentioned in his conference speech, each representing a subtle political challenge to the status quo.
“Transformative change will be challenging,” he conceded, but he asserted, “Continuity with the past is insufficient.” At an enthusiastic fringe event the previous evening, Ed Miliband, the Foreign Secretary and a key ally of Burnham, encapsulated the party’s newfound defiance. “All politics involves risk. Progressive politics carries a unique form of risk,” he emphasized. While Burnham may possess a communication style reminiscent of Blair in the 1990s, past New Labour ministers were less inclined to voice such bold sentiments.
Proponents of that more distant political culture might argue that avoiding direct confrontations was a key factor in Blair’s two successful re-elections. Nonetheless, Burnham, who was part of Blair’s government during his formative years, also exhibits a strong inclination toward collaboration, frequently expressing a desire to work alongside other parties. His speech was notably devoid of typical partisan attacks, reflecting a conscious effort to move away from the hyper-partisan politics that have characterized recent years and left many voters feeling exhausted and alienated.
Despite his approachable demeanor, Burnham is quite strategic, often outmaneuvering adversaries and rendering their tactics ineffective, as evidenced by his dealings with Labour opponents like Morgan McSweeney. In contrast to the relentless outrage and tribalism displayed by figures like Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage, Burnham’s message of hope and national unity, along with his candid acknowledgment that “this country isn’t where any of us would want it to be,” stands out.
Labour’s steady yet modest rise in the polls indicates that a significant number of voters are weary of the previous era marked by high rhetoric and low achievement, positioning Labour as a leading party, potentially until the next general election and beyond, when many of Burnham’s ambitious reforms are slated for action. However, introducing substantial changes to established policies, such as altering the pension triple lock, is likely to provoke backlash from some voters and provide ammunition for Labour’s critics in Westminster and the media. Yet, in an electorate that is more divided than ever, the threshold for re-election may be lower, with winning over even a third of voters being sufficient. Therefore, being contentious or unpopular may carry less weight for a government, provided it maintains its resolve and satisfies a robust core of supporters. Burnham’s decisive critiques of privatized utilities appear to align with this strategy, while his gestures towards cross-party collaboration and electoral reform may attract voters from the Liberal Democrats and Greens.
Like Pedro Sánchez in Spain, another center-left leader who has remained in power for eight years, Burnham embodies contradictions: he is both straightforward and evasive, opposing populism while adept at populist gestures. He aligns with leftist critiques of capitalism yet maintains a pro-business stance, presenting himself as a self-proclaimed savior capable of coalition-building. With a photogenic and politically nimble demeanor, both Sánchez and Burnham seem better adapted to the current climate of uncertainty and discontent than the previous generation of rigid social democrats like Starmer. Perhaps the modern center-left is finally discovering how to govern effectively and reshape societies in ways that their more popular predecessors in the 1990s failed to adequately address.
For too long, it has been the right that has expanded the boundaries of governmental capabilities…
