Skip to content 
Andy Burnham went to Downing Street in July promising to reverse the “wrong turns” of British government work over the past 40 years. He cast his new administration as a “circuit breaker”, promising a programmatic antidote to deindustrialisation, regional inequality and popular discontent – the damage done to the body politic by decades of neoliberalism.
The budget delivered by Chancellor John Healey last week was competent, in parts clever. His 98 measures – a record number of policy interventions by recent standards – demonstrated political acumen while conveying a broad indication of the direction in which the government hopes to travel. It was consistent with the emerging identity of the Burnham government, particularly its commitment to an interventionist state as a means of restoring public faith in government. The centerpiece of the budget – a one-off £100 payment to around 20 million households in council tax bands A to D – signaled this approach. This was another “breathing room” measure designed to convince an impatient public that the government was paying attention to everyday frustrations and trying to make a difference.
Andy Burnham becomes Prime Minister in Labor’s coronation
There was also a weak populist dimension in the budget. Gaming companies, banks and vape shops have been identified as sources of income. Healey presented the temporary increase in the bank surcharge as a kind of repayment: the public helped support the banks during the financial crisis, and now the banks should help support families. This smart choice of budget enemies contrasts favorably with Labour’s first fiscal package in October 2024, which angered farmers, employers and pensioners.
Regardless of its political merits, however, the budget fell well short of the economic breakdown that Burnham’s analysis promised. No single fiscal event could reasonably be expected to dismantle the dominant assumptions of British economic policy. But the narrow course charted by Healey last week is starkly revealing of the constraints the government faces.
Interestingly, the Prime Minister himself gave weight to this assessment. “The room to maneuver was not what I would have hoped it would be,” Burnham told ITV in a sit-down interview. He argued that the budget was “radical in what we could do.”
Pointing to geopolitical developments, the Prime Minister suggested that “the volatility of things means that you can’t necessarily deliver the budget that you want to deliver in an ideal world”.
Burnham was also asked about the extent to which he feels “hindered” by Labour’s 2024 manifesto. “If I had held the pen to the current Labor manifesto, I would have written it exactly as it is,” he replied. “Well, no is the answer.”
The budget
Burnham’s response acknowledges an inconvenient truth: the boundaries within which his government operates are defined by a document he had no hand in drafting.
This is a political problem for which there is no obvious solution.
Burnham could drop his recent statements and call a general election, presenting his own program to the country. But a snap survey would carry significant risks. The price of a personal mandate for Burnhamism must be weighed against the prospect of substantial losses. Labour’s recovery under Burnham has been uneven, with the party still having to make up ground in Wales and Scotland. Furthermore, the prospect of a hung parliament could end up imposing further constraints through a covenant with Ed Davey and the Liberal Democrats.
In September, Burnham said an early election would be destabilizing and “backward.” He feels that an impatient public would prefer Labor to continue with the directorship. Indeed, but making the political case for forcing an election, making the argument that a snap poll is in the national interest – as Theresa May noted in 2017 – is significantly more problematic.
Theresa May’s election game backfires, resulting in a hung parliament
An early election would also require Burnham to reverse the broad direction of travel – vibes – to a full value and politically defensible offer. This would mean solving questions that his government has only just begun to answer, or until now has been able to put off. For example, a campaign calls for a coherent position on Europe – on a future referendum on the customs union, the single market or the complete return to the EU. Burnham’s decision to open the debate on Europe demonstrated considerable confidence, but also latent divisions in Labour’s ranks. An election to secure a new mandate would certainly mean that Labour’s restrictive tax commitments, as defined in its 2024 manifesto, would be reviewed. How voters would react to Labor loosening these promises is difficult to judge, but the risks are clear – especially if the Conservatives enter the campaign from a position of strength.
For now, the government seems to have settled on an interim strategy. Burnham increasingly adopted the stance of a de facto opposition force, using commissions, consultations and committees to prepare the ground for a new settlement, while issuing tactical interventions to make short-term progress in the current mold. Speaking to ITV, Burnham was relatively candid about this approach. “I am in a position where I want to imagine what a good 10-year plan for the country looks like, start with it, and then at the right moment seek a mandate to fully implement it,” he said.
But the risks of this strategy are all too obvious. The longer Burnham governs within the protective umbrellas set by the 2024 manifesto, the harder it may become to distinguish his administration from the one it replaced. As long as Labour’s legitimacy rests on that platform, according to his own analysis, he will remain in a discredited status quo.
Burnham has proven that he can govern differently in presentation, priorities and political instincts. But his wholesale rejection of the prevailing orthodoxy risks undermining Labour’s ability to chart a new course, opening a gap between what voters expect and what his government can deliver.
Great Britain is leaving the European Union after 47 years of membership
There is another danger. A government operating under these constraints can be busy with the ingenuity necessary to work around them. Political energy is spent finding interventions that fit within a narrow framework, rather than confronting the deeper problems that the framework itself perpetuates. Government risks losing its sense of agency, becoming increasingly able to navigate the limits of its legacy – but less able to challenge them.
This is the difficulty at the heart of the Burnham Premiership. He has forcefully challenged the terms of political debate without changing the terms on which he can rule. The budget bought him some breathing space, but did not resolve this underlying tension.
Something has to break at some point: the manifesto, the timetable for an election or the ambition itself. The extent to which Labor can find a sustainable solution to this dilemma will determine Burnham’s fate.
