And so, another Prime Minister is gone. Admittedly, it isn’t entirely clear yet in terms of what will change apart from the personnel, even if we can be pretty confident who will be in 10 Downing Street at the end of the transition.
The first question is, how long will this take? An effective coronation would allow the new Leader to take their place before the Summer Recess, whilst a contest might take us into, or close to, Conference season. But Government will falter whilst new ministers get a handle on their briefs and priorities adjust.
From a personal perspective, I see Keir Starmer as being Labour’s equivalent to Menzies Campbell – a man who, in office, was exactly what people thought he would be and yet this seemed to come as a surprise to those who put him there. The difference was that Menzies Campbell did have a clearly definable set of principles which guided his steps.
And, in fairness to Keir Starmer, he led an administration which, in office, had a tendency to act in ways contrary to the expectations of those who put their faith in them just two years ago.
It’s almost certainly too soon to predict what difference this will make beyond the short term. Yes, there will probably be an improvement in Labour’s polling position, possibly at the expense of the Greens, but unless there is going to be an evident change of direction, why should that last?
Those who have observed Andy Burnham at close quarters suggest someone who lacks a firm political philosophy, and as Greater Manchester’s Mayor, he has often blamed central government for limitations on positive change on his watch. Now, he will have control of those levers of power – what will he change, how and why?
From a more insular perspective, what does a change of Labour leadership mean for the Liberal Democrats? There aren’t many places where we compete with Labour for local leadership, and in many of those, Labour councillors took a sound thrashing this year. An improvement in their polling numbers will lift most Labour boats, but that feels as though it’s going to be more of an issue for Reform and the Greens than for us.
Will a Burnham administration be more cordial towards Europe, more inclined to seek a closer relationship with the European Union? That might challenge our Party’s emerging stance, and might lead to a suggestion that we were too cautious for too long.
But I’m just another interested observer. What do readers think, and what, if anything, should the Liberal Democrats do about it?
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Concerns over therapy ferrets used to kill rats at UK's largest children's prison
National politicians should keep their noses out of the decision-making processes of local councillors
David Raw
Ynys Mon Man
David Garlick
Dennis
Matt (Bristol)
6 Comments
It is possible Burnham – if he succeeds Starmer – will make noises about electoral reform as part of paving the way to an insurance-policy approach to either tactical voting or seats deals and even coalition to gain a second term for Labour.
He displays the typical Labour inability to clearly differentiate proportionality, transferability, multi-member and single-member systems, so its not at all clear what would result and if we’d be any further forward than the Jenkins Commission or the AV referendum, even after an election. And the Welsh D’Hondt system (about the worst possible PR system in my view, because of how much it restricts voter choice and degrades locality of representation) remains Labour’s last experiment in electoral reform.
I wouldn’t expect anything from him quick, though, particularly not in a multi-member form, and not after tactical voting served him in Makerfield: whilst electoral reform remains dangled as a carrot for Polanski and Davey, a Labour PM doesn’t have to haggle away other parts of their platform, and can keep the other parties of the centre-left onside. Concede it too early and control over the left bloc is lost for Labour.
For all Burnhams hot air on objectives and fuzzy new policies, any changes are restricted by the fact that we.will find it difficult to borrow more. Indeed Reeves targets will be tested in the next 6 months. Burnham has been absent from national politics for the last 10 years so there’s a bit of learning for him to do.
We now have a great opportunity to fill the middle ground and back an EU Membership reapplication. The Conservatives are way right and there’s no point in trying to compete with Reforms gutter policies.
Criticism of Andy Burnham not doing enough for Manchester is surely out of place in our heavily centralised governing system. He joined with Andy Street (then West Midlands mayor) to call for more devolution or resources and powers to local government. So would that be part of what he will now work for? Sam Freedman (who worked in the Dept of Education) says in his book ‘Failed State’ that one key reason for bad government in the UK is that people in Whitehall are given so much detail to implement and decide that they cannot properly cope and ministers with their civil servants do not focus enough on the development of proper long-term policies to turn the country round.
Alex B – I do think, if Burnham retreats from the unsuccessful attempt to address Blue-Labour concerns with non-racist but immigrant-wary ‘civic nationalist’ rhetoric, space opens up for Badenoch to revive her vote further (although I don’t expect Labour’s immigration policy to majorly change, this is about words, not acts).
The Tories should be a Lib Dem worry still, particularly if there is, for eg, a need to fight a byelection in a ‘Blue Wall’ seat won at the last election. They are not dead and they cannot now entirely be beaten by being portrayed as Faragian dupes or Reform-clones, as in the mind of the voter a distinct identity is being built up (although the differences in policy terms between them and Reform are still tight at times, and some of this perceived distinctive rests in who Badenoch is as a person; irrational and conspiracist and rage-bating as she is, I think its coming clear she was the right choice for them, vs Jenrick and possibly even Cleverly. All that is very very short of an endorsement).
I think the public have become growingly impatient and want something more radical – what that is depends on who who ask. I do believe that was a level of both the media and poor PR causing the perception of ineptitude. I met Andy last year at the Compass conference; he thanked me for the questions I asked. As someone who believes in social democracy, his achievements in Greater Manchester based on localism stand out to me. It is important for the Liberal Democrats to support efforts that align with our aims – be that devolution, or electoral reform. It also means that Labour could be less statist and cautious, but the impulse for top-down approaches to running things should be held to scrutiny as it always has been.
I didn’t expect to feel sorry for Sir Keir Starmer this morning but I’m afraid I do. I put his downfall down more to the impact and ripples of the Mandelson appointment than to anything else. Having said that he wielded the sword himself on occasion. In historical terms it has a few parallels with the defenestration of Asquith many years ago.
The jury is out on whether Burnham will be any better, but the lesson for Lib Dems is to look beyond the prosperous southern bits of ‘Middle’ England and more to the needs of the whole of the UK, particularly those areas left defenestrated by Thatcher. It may be that a change of Leadership as well as geographical emphasis is needed …….. one can fall into the water too many times when more substance is needed.
What those in ‘Middle England’ now running the Lib Dems have allowed to happen by default in many areas north of the Trent (in Lib Dem activity as well as economically) needs to be remedied pdq. A bit of Rooseveltian New Deal Keynesian economics is long overdue. Whatever else happens, Farage & Co need to be beaten.