Pool via AFP“We are on borrowed time if we don’t get a move on,” Angela Rayner, the former deputy prime minister who is back in the cabinet this week as housing secretary, told the BBC’s Today programme on Friday.
It has been quite the week at Westminster. Sir Keir Starmer’s departure as prime minister on Monday seems rather a while ago.
The fledgling Burnham administration has been seeking to find its feet and make a decent first impression at the same time, as many try to do in the first days in a job.
There has been an early pattern in these early days: an early morning nugget of news dropping from No10.
Today, the prime minister is assembling what Rayner calls “a pride of mayors” among others for a meeting of what is known as the National Economic Council at the new No10 North in Manchester.
Andy Burnham claims his new base in Manchester represents the beginning of “the biggest rebalancing of power our country has seen” and he will be “bringing forward the biggest changes in the last 40 years”.
His early announcements have been considerably more piecemeal than that – he says his “10 year plan for Britain” will come later in the year.
It is worth remembering there was talk from both Boris Johnson and his allies and from Sir Keir Starmer about their plans for the decade ahead – both fizzled out rather more quickly than that.
So how should we assess how much politics has changed, or not?
The early evidence – and let’s be frank, it is only that given we are just a few days in – points to Andy Burnham being both more sharp and more nimble than his predecessor in setting out what he is attempting to do and trying to point to early examples of what that might look like, with the announcements of the last few days.
With the tinkering of how the government is run, like the creation of the Office of Prime Minister, and the establishment of No 10 North, he’s made it clear that the arteries of power flow very much to and from him.
He hopes he can overcome the critique of Sir Keir Starmer and others, that one of the frustrations of being prime minister can be pulling levers and nothing actually happens.
PA MediaBurnham’s opponents are having to recalibrate and work through how they take on a new prime minister.
The Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch’s al fresco speech and news conference on a rooftop in central London on Thursday was a tacit acknowledgement that the political terms of trade have changed.
She teased the new prime minister over his informal style – he “seems like a nice guy…I’m glad he’s got a sense of humour,” she told us, before getting to the essence of her critique, that his offer was superficial, and thin.
“Is that it?” she asked, adding: “He is behaving like he’s still the mayor of Manchester. He is now the prime minister of the United Kingdom.”
Burnham wants to project a sense that he gets it – the cost of living pressures so many feel so acutely – and he is getting a move on.
But in just these first few days there has been a reminder that life comes at you fast as prime minister.
Firstly, on the domestic front – his intervention on the early release of prisoners in England and Wales, demanding what he calls a “pause”, is a case study in the dilemmas of governing: crowded prisons and, so, difficult choices between least worst options – which criminals to free first.
Secondly, on the international front – after Burnham renewed America’s permission to use British airbases for what are called “defensive” strikes on Iran, Tehran is claiming those bases are now legitimate targets. And, with the conflict in the Middle East escalating, the oil price is spiking again.
Then there are the huge questions that tumble from Burnham’s big promises.
He has pledged, for instance, “the biggest council house building programme since the post war period.” How would this be paid for? And what does the promise actually mean?
It is worth a listen to Matt Chorley’s interview with Angela Rayner on BBC Radio 5 Live on precisely this point – the housing secretary isn’t able to define when the “post war period” ended and therefore there is no numerical target attached to what appears to be a rather bold promise.
And this on the same day that Rayner acknowledging keeping Labour’s promise to build 1.5 million new homes in England by 2029 looks rather shaky: she told the BBC it was “a difficult target”.
What about defence spending? The new chancellor, John Healey, packed it in as defence secretary because he thought the department he now runs, the Treasury, didn’t get it when it came to keeping us safe.
Let’s see how he gets on now the boot is on the other foot.
Burnham is cutting business rates for some in England, but what of Labour’s promise in its manifesto two years ago to “replace the business rates system, so we can raise the same revenue but in a fairer way.” Will that happen?
And beyond the symbolism of having a prime ministerial office outside London, what, in practical terms, can No10 North actually achieve? How much clout and authority is it given? Just how often will senior ministers be there? And how much will it cost?
Civil servants are being asked if they would like to relocate to the north west of England. The indications from Team Burnham is they take it hugely seriously, but does the civil service truly respond to that, and given the turbulence in politics in recent years, is it an idea that lives beyond this prime minister?
Given the intended long term home of No10 North is currently a building site and is not due to be finished until 2032, this is a live question.
And how many noises off do we hear from grumpy Starmerites as the early novelty of governing dilutes? Given the speed with which one, Darren Jones, went public with a grumble it will be something Team Burnham will be wary of.
Then, there is the new prime minister’s boldest claim of all – that he will be “bringing forward the biggest changes in the last 40 years”. Really? He describes a desire for a “new political model and a new economic model”.
It is an understatement to say this triggers a cascade of questions. Including, for some of his critics, including Reform UK, a key one – where is your mandate for doing this?
The fascinating question of the coming months is the extent to which Andy Burnham can credibly or not, as voters see it, set a pathway towards the change he wants and then, in time, call a general election asking for an endorsement of his ideas and direction.
It is three years until there has to be an election, but the timing up until then is in his gift.
His opponents are publicly saying bring it on when there is talk of an election sooner rather than later. Privately, plenty of Conservative and Reform folk acknowledge they are not ready yet.
Could Andy Burnham be tempted? When asked, he has said “we’re in a parliamentary democracy and, as we’ve seen through time, if somebody can command a majority of the MPs in the House of Commons, they obviously then have the legitimacy to lead things forward.” That is a statement of constitutional truth, rather than a definitive answer either way to the question itself.
Many prime ministers arriving in office between general elections crave their own mandate. Gordon Brown reflects in his memoirs the agonising private conversations he had about a snap election and in deciding against it found himself going “from near hero to near zero in a day.”
Boris Johnson went for it in 2019 and got a near-landslide out of it.
Theresa May, on the other hand, went for it in 2017 and ended up losing the majority she had inherited. The recent history books, then, offer a less than clear guide and Burnham has inherited a colossal majority.
His decision and its timing will likely be driven by how quickly and how much he can do with it.
In other words, whether he is popular enough.
Let’s see.
Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to read top political analysis, gain insight from across the UK and stay up to speed with the big moments. It’ll be delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
