Burnham has made the same dangerous mistake every day since he was elected
The coronation of Andy Burnham is fraught with dangers. Never will a prime minister have arrived in Downing Street with so little scrutiny of what he wants to do.
After his speech in Manchester yesterday, Burnham declined to take any questions from journalists. And reporters were confined to the balcony to prevent any ambushes. Burnham and his aides wanted
everyone to concentrate on the speech, and not get diverted by questions about Ed Miliband being his Chancellor, or whether he adores Donald Trump.
A big pity, since there were plenty of questions to ask about the speech. The biggest is how he’ll obey existing spending limits when his programme seems committed to tens of billions in extra spending – on the biggest council housing programme since the early 1950s, for example, or awarding of government contracts by social value not just low cost.
Burnham might have struggled with his answers, as he did in the Makerfield campaign when Newsnight’s Victoria Derbyshire asked him what the Treasury’s fiscal rules are, and Burnham said he didn’t want “to go through an exam on the fiscal rules. I know what the fiscal rules are”.
Viewers must have suspected otherwise. It was an excruciatingly embarrassing moment.
Remarkably, Burnham doesn’t seem to have undergone any serious questioning in the eleven days since he won Makerfield. And it seems unlikely he’ll take detailed questions in the three weeks before to enters Downing Street on 20 July.
Proper scrutiny of wannabe PMs isn’t just useful to the media and to voters. It’s actually helpful to the would-be leaders themselves. Questions can expose flaws in an argument early on, draw attention to snags they may overlook, and generally sharpen up the leader’s act and policies.
Strong leaders thrive on interrogation. Tony Blair in his early years held a press conference almost once a month, and they often went on for 90 minutes, until every reporter got their question answered. Remarkably, Blair was rarely discomfited.
Yet, Andy Burnham looks set to be the least scrutinised PM in modern times.
Nearly half of our prime ministers since the war – eight out of 18 – took office having served as Leader of the Opposition, usually for several years, and then faced the cut and thrust of a general election. That was so for Attlee, Churchill, Wilson, Heath, Thatcher, Blair, Cameron and Starmer.
The other ten post-war PMs came to office after holding one or more of the great offices of state – Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, or Home Secretary – where their views and abilities became apparent. That applies to Eden, Macmillan, Douglas-Home, Callaghan, Major, Brown, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak.
And all but one of the seven PMs since Jim Callaghan took office after party leadership contests with hustings events, broadcast and press questioning. The exception was Gordon Brown who became PM unopposed, though even he answered questions after making speeches.
Without scrutiny and robust, intelligent questioning, politicians get away with making unworkable and uncosted promises, and intellectually incoherent ideas.
Yesterday’s speech without questions gave us a few more details of what Burnham plans to do, but there were still many gaps, and it was confined to the economic and home fronts. We still have scant idea of where Burnham stands on foreign policy and defence. Burnham has virtually no overseas experience beyond perhaps a few visits to the EU Council of Ministers, and trade trips as Manchester mayor.
Is he as committed to defending Ukraine as Starmer was? How exactly will he develop closer ties with Europe, and is returning to EU membership still his long-term goal? Where does he stand on Israel and Palestine? What are his views on Trump? Will he boost defence spending as many want?
Two weeks before the 2024 election, I tweeted that journalists would regret not asking “more probing questions” and giving Labour “such an easy ride” in that campaign. Had the media been tougher on Starmer in 2024, and exposed how thread-bare his programme was, Labour might not have won so resoundingly, and the Starmer government might have avoided some of its many early mistakes.
There’s the same danger now. Perhaps worse. Both in Makerfield and in his speech yesterday, Burnham was full of inspiration and aspiration but – despite the heatwave – seemed to lack perspiration.
A programme for government needs years of hard thought – not just the few weeks Burnham has before becoming PM.
I wish Andy Burnham well. I agree with the thrust of much he says. But government needs intense, intelligent thought – not policy on the hoof and to be open to hard analysis.
The Burnham premiership, I fear, will be even more chaotic and badly prepared than Starmer’s.