Yesterday, The Observer ran an interview with Burnham which beautifully illustrated everything I’ve been saying about the impending disaster of his leadership of the Labour Party. There’s lots to talk about here, so let’s begin.
We’ll start with the headline, which often times in a newspaper article is a little unfair on the interviewee since they have a tendency to be either an exaggeration of something said or a misquote. However, in this instance, it appears to be directly from Burnham’s own mouth.
“I was loyal to Tony Blair, loyal to Gordon Brown, and loyal to Ed Miliband. I have never been into factional politics.”
Wow, where do you start? From an outsider’s perspective, it’s difficult to see how Burnham declaring his loyalty towards past Labour leaders, amongst them some of the most unpopular men in the country, is a great advert for his own brand of leadership. If he thought all those guys, with their very different ideological stances, were hunky dory, what would Andy Burnham’s tenure as leader actually look like? From The Observer article I got little idea, other than that he seems to want to keep absolutely everyone in the party happy no matter what. Which was ultimately Ed Miliband’s big mistake.
In fact the one thing Burnham talked about in the interview that was in anyway bold was that he wanted Labour to act as a kind of attack dog in regards to David Cameron’s EU renegotiation. Not to keep him honest but – and I swear I’m not making this up – to ensure that the renegotiation is sufficiently right wing. Burnham wants to make sure the crack down on benefits is sufficiently robust and hinted he may not back Stay In if it was too leftie.
People point to old stalwarts like Charlie Falconer and Dugher swinging behind Burnham as proof that the man who came fourth in 2010 has more going for him than you might think. However, I see the opposite. I see a bunch of the saner heads available refusing to absorb the full impact of the general election loss, retreating – as in 2010 – back into a comfort zone, one in which the Labour Party can win a stonking majority by doing nothing more than talking over and over again about how the NHS has (insert random number here) days/weeks/months to live.
Dan Hodges recently made a joke in his column about how if you thought Miliband’s 35% strategy was a bad idea, wait until you get hold of Burnham’s 12% strategy. It will be a disaster for the Labour Party; I can only hope it won’t be a disaster for the country as a whole.
1. It’s vital that Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet members are loyal to their current Leader. Or do you think that it’s OK to be loyal at the time but you shouldn’t admit to it later?
2. It was a strength of Ed Miliband’s leadership that he kept the Labour Party united. There were other weaknesses but we would have won even fewer seats without that essential unity.
3. When canvassed, many people complained about immigrants receiving benefits, particularly ‘in work’ benefits. They would be shocked if you called them right wing. Burnham is reflecting those concerns. You’re wrong about ‘hinted’: he made a strong pro-EU case.
4. Dan Hodges is no friend of the Labour Party these days.
It’s almost as if the Parliamentary Labour party prefer perpetual opposition. Are they really going to make the same mistake as before? Another Ed Miliband… liked by his colleagues but viewed with suspicion and/or disdain by everyone else? There’s something about Andy Burnham which makes him uncomfortable to watch. He’s just not “user friendly”. He carries too much past Labour baggage and he’s already talking rubbish in urging a referendum in 2016. Even with the paucity of talent within the diminished Labour ranks… they can do better that Mr Burnham.
Hopefully… with one member one vote… Labour will end up with one of the ladies instead.
Some observations on your comments and in general about the Andy Burnham candidacy. Firstly I agree that maintaining a consistent line during a campaign is actually required and I think to now criticize him for coming out with his disagreements after the event is disingenuous. AB is not stupid and without the massive navel gazing which is going on within Labour, will have already realized that the country will not accept a pure left wing candidacy and he has to move to the centre on key issues which attract voters. I think the fundamental problem and millstone that is being created for him, as we speak, is that he is being portrayed as the Unions next place man. That problem was one of the key perceptions about EM from the last leadership election. The union leadership, to my surprise, have come out and openly appear to support him. This is a future pile of gold dust for the Tories when it comes to 2020.
Furthermore it seems to be giving the impression that future Labour policy will be highly influenced by the Unions. Trade Union membership is falling and at 6.5M is about 25% of the workforce. In practice its less than this because some ‘trade unions’ are actually professional bodies which will not vote labour so much. Its interesting in the government stats that the fall in membership is greater among the younger working population.
In five years?? Being a leftwing Labour Union supported leader may become pretty toxic.
My biggest fear now is that the new Labour leader is so tainted that they cannot form an effective opposition to the Tories and properly hold them to account.