On the 2nd of September, Andy Burnham delivered his first PMQs in the House of Commons. His statement the day prior produced a diagnosis for the UK, and a few hints at the medicine he may prescribe. He argued that since the 1980s the UK ‘took a series of wrong turns’ and that;
‘Political power was centralised, economic power privatised, the country deindustrialised, austerity followed… then Brexit compounded the damage, ushering in a decade of low growth and stalled regeneration.’
So, then what have we learnt, if anything from Burnham’s first appearance in PMQs after his first session on Wednesday. Three areas stood out. First was his overall charisma. Whilst not new it made for a PMQ dynamic not seen in a while, and a distinct contrast between Burnham and his predecessor. Second was the suggestion towards cross-party cooperation, made clearer through language choices when detailing prior governments. Finally, was the careful line not crossed, ensuring to not repeat previous governments early budget leaks.
Burnham’s charisma is nothing new. Within days of appointing his cabinet, Burnham and his chancellor were recording videos for TikTok blind ranking their favourite pub snacks, to promote their announcement of 20% cuts to business rates on pubs, clubs and music venues. The novel feeling from his charisma however seemingly stems from the lack of leadership and personality in the previous government. With Starmer being robotic in the commons, and lacking a public identity in the media, Burnham has filled this void, showcasing this skill in the commons to think and articulate points more dynamically. Potentially, this allows for better understanding from the electorate through clearer messaging and relatability, but also between parties, where in his statement on September 1st, he took questions from over 100 MPs from different parties. On the other hand, Kemi Badenoch highlighted that it was an unfunded cut with Burnham simply wanting to be a people pleaser by cutting taxes across sectors.
In PMQs, Burnham started his address like any other PMQ by stating the week’s business and the week ahead. The first question from the leader of the opposition, Badenoch, concerned the rising welfare bill, followed by concerns over the rising cost of government borrowing and servicing our debt. Burnham’s response was interesting for two reasons. First, he did not blame one party, but rather successive governments for the rising welfare costs and youth NEET (Not in Education, Employment or Training) figures. More interesting was his response, which gives an idea of the flavour of medicine that Burnham will deliver. He stated that young people need an alternative route other than university, and practical experience should be given as an option from age 14. As a solution it makes sense. The younger people that can take practical jobs will reduce the welfare bill in two ways. Firstly, by not having to claim unemployment benefits themselves. And secondly, they will be taxpayers to the state, so will help in offsetting the bloated welfare bill staring us down today. However, it also requires sufficient investment into education to ensure teachers are not overworked, and the correct training is given to young people to help them succeed in an already crushing job market.
Burnham offered a cross-party approach to cutting the welfare bill, by inviting members of the opposition to review the costs and work through it together, only for Badenoch to highlight that she proposed this to his predecessor. Despite this, it shows a step towards cross-party collaboration, where Burnham may be willing to lay down political point scoring, in favour of achieving results that are net positive for Britain.
Finally, there is Burnham’s budget. The only thing known for sure is the adherence to the fiscal rules. Those rules state that the current budget should be on course to be in balance or surplus by 2029/30 (stability rule); the net financial debt should fall as a share of the economy in 2029/30 (investment rule); and some types of welfare spending must remain below a pre-specified level (the welfare cap). When asked what the fiscal rules are and if he would follow them, Burnham recited them and replied in the affirmative.
Beyond this, Burnham was cautious to give too much away regarding the budget, opting for his Chancellor to lay out spending plans in the October budget. Tan Dhesi, the Labour MP for Slough, questioned Burnham on the rise to military spending. Whilst agreeing to this, Burnham added the caveat, that this should include British manufacturing, leaning into potential nationalisation of British production. He also laid out in his statement on Tuesday the plan for stronger public control over water companies, and pledges to British Steel and agriculture when answering a question from Ed Davey on closer ties to the EU after the lost decade of growth. Finally, Burnham was questioned by Badenoch concerning the rising borrowing costs to government and Labour’s historical tax-and-spend policy. Whilst responsible spending is crucial to any government success, the issue of rising 30-year government yields is not an exclusive issue to the United Kingdom. Rather, international factors such as the war in Iran, which has driven up energy costs and consequently inflation, and the carry trade between the USD and JPY, and the Federal Reserve’s expected rate hike in September all push up the cost of borrowing on international markets.
It is too early to tell what Burnham’s full plan for government truly is. We saw a glimpse of it in the first week of September in his address to the commons. Cross-party support, manufacturing in Britain and control of key resources for British production and services. His true plans for government, however, may only be seen in October when his Chancellor announces the budget. Within this, fiscal headroom left by the previous administration may be wiped out because of rising borrowing costs. Badenoch proposed to cut welfare to help find the fiscal headroom, which Burnham skirted around. This may result in cuts to spending in some sectors, or more likely, a windfall tax on companies, namely those who have been profiting from rising energy and oil costs, as well as on banks profiting from rising interest rates.
After years of politics in the commons which has felt hostile, an approach that builds upon collaboration would be welcome. If Burnham is sincere when reaching out to the opposition to work together, then it could be a breath of fresh air for UK politics. On the other hand, it is easy to start fresh with claims of collaboration and quickly slip into partisan point scoring politics in a short amount of time. Only time will tell if this is a much-needed fresh approach, or more of the same.
