It has been remiss of me not to have recognised the incoming of a new Prime Minister – with this article covering Andy Burnham’s first week
Because Starmer had nothing to say, he had no voice to say it in. We should haveA Judgement on Keir Starmer by Will Davies
known. In 2021 he wrote a 12,000-word essay to define himself and his politics.
It was remarkable for its emptiness. Opportunities would be seized, potential fulfilled,
power harnessed and productivity unlocked. Sentences had verbs, but it wasn’t
always clear what those verbs related to — under a Labour government, “community,
wellbeing, security and opportunity” were to be “fleshed out”, which is nice, but it
didn’t mean anything in opposition and was no guide to government.Many of the things that now seem exciting and impressive about Burnham asBurnham’s first 100 days
an individual leader are things that were taken for granted about Tony Blair and
even David Cameron: having a plan that a leader appears to believe in, is willing to
argue for, will take flack for (Burnham is still something of an unknown quantity here),
and which others can then position themselves in relation to, either as opponents or
supporters. Quite how radical Burnham will end up being remains to be seen, but
some of the appearance of political radicalism is merely the shock of politics being
done purposefully and enthusiastically, signalling how dysfunctional British politics
had become in the decade following the Brexit referendum. Starmer’s absence could be felt and witnessed across three different aspects of
political leadership: appetite, destination, ideology. It wasn’t clear why he wanted
to be Prime Minister (appetite), it wasn’t clear what he wanted to do with power
(destination) and it wasn’t clear why or with what justification he wanted to get there
(ideology). It was this triple vacuum that made him such a bewildering figure,
psychologically as much as politically. There weren’t even any significant stories of
psychological frailty, sensitivity, rage or rupture, that usually leak out from centres
of political power, simply because politicians are such unusual psychological
specimens. It felt like there was no there there.
Today – the ‘first 100 days’ is acknowledgement that first impressions count. In the case of Andy Burnham – seventh prime minister in 10 years and the Labour Party deeply unpopular – this is the chance, maybe the last chance, to turn around the government’s fortunes. There is, of course, no magic to 100 days as opposed to 90 or 110, but seeing each term (to use the unit of time I’m familiar with as a former teacher) as a key strategic period is a useful way to govern. Thinking in 100 day or three-month chunks forces the government to think beyond getting through the week.
Of course, all of these three-month periods should be part of an overarching strategy that Burnham puts together with a 2/3 year horizon, working back from where he wants to be at the next election. This in turn will need to fit into the 10-year plan that he has promised. I used to write these strategies in Number 10. They require pulling together several inputs from different parts of the building: the policy announcements, the big events, a speech programme – all in pursuit of the key strategic objectives for the period. Done well, the plan gives purpose and direction to Number 10 and the government. Rather than the prime minister’s diary being filled with activities from those who shout the loudest, this is a strategic way of ensuring he spends his time (his most precious commodity) in the most effective way possible. What follows is what a three-month plan could look like; a template for the kind of short document that ultimately needs to be interrogated and then signed off by the prime minister.
How to compile a 100 day/three-month strategic plan
Objectives
This is the key starting point. What does the prime minister want to have achieved in the first 100 days and how will he measure success? I have given some examples below of what the objectives might look like (ideally there would be 3 to 5 - I’ve done a menu of 6) and the kinds of steps that might exemplify them.
(i)To establish that Burnham is an insurgent and his government represents a ‘circuit breaker’ e.g a. Appoint a Cabinet with the biggest reformers in the key positions and an instruction to work at pace. b. Structural changes – reforming the centre of government plus creating task forces/mission teams to deliver the key priorities. (Instead of assuming that new Ministers and one more heave from departments will get there) c. Make No10 North work as a new centre of power outside of Westminster d. Signal new policy directions e.g on education (ii)To bring to life his big idea about devolution and ‘rewiring the state’ Burnham’s big idea is to hand power back to the people and tackle an overly-centralised state. This needs to be worked into a narrative that lands with the public, accompanied by a set of speeches, activities and policies that bring it alive e.g. a. A new devolution settlement with new powers and resources to communities b. A massive reduction in Whitehall numbers and functions. c. No 10 North opened and staffed and Burnham working there each week (iii)To demonstrate a willingness to take tough decisions If the perceived weakness is that Burnham is not willing to take tough decisions, he can establish the reverse in the first few months. And there will be many opportunities to do so e.g. a. The zeal with which he gets stuck into public service and welfare reform b. The tough choices in the first budget c. the message of trade-offs to the faithful at party conference (iv)To connect with the electorate and get them to take a second look at Labour e.g. a. Design a new communications strategy b. Use Labour Party conference for a reset with the public c. Use No10 North as a platform for keeping in constant touch with the public. (v) To show economic credibility and a plan for a new economy e.g. a. Deliver a successful first Budget giving confidence there is a credible economic plan for stability and growth in every postcode b. Unleash the power of business – particularly small and medium sized businesses - to create wealth c. Take the first steps to making the tax system fairer d. Take tough decisions on spending eg welfare spending (vi) To show he is sure-footed on the international stage e.g. a. First meeting with Trump b. First meeting with European leaders c. First visit to Ukraine d. First armed forces visit
Narrative
The narrative – or washing line – is what all (or most) announcements should hang off. The narrative has to be big and go way beyond – ‘this is a cost of living government’. It needs to capture three things: 1. The big argument about an overly-centralised state and an unequal society requiring a new politics and a new economy - connected to the future and personal aspiration 2. A story about Britain’s place in the world – how it gets its reputation back - after the last 10 years of instability 3. A personal story about Burnham and his values and purpose The narrative should be turned into a message note that gives Cabinet Ministers the context for all their communications and shows everyone pulling in the same direction.
Speech programme
Speeches still matter. They are where arguments are honed and stakeholders and the public get a sense of clarity and direction. Continuous explanation (long form and short form) is essential for a government to be effective in the attention economy. For a new prime minister this is particularly important. e.g. He should make a series of big reforming speeches in the first few months that might include: a. How I will rewire the state b. Why we need to rethink education providing parity of esteem between academic and vocational. c. How I will give young people their future back – building on Neet review etc d. Why we need to change our economic model to ensure living standards rise e. The part you can play in renewing Britain f. My vision of Britain in the world
Big moments
There will be key moments during the first 100 days that need to be planned for. Some are already fixed: the leaders’ speech at Labour Party Conference, the first PMQs. Others are still to be scheduled (I have guessed when they might be in the table below). Some, not yet scheduled, are likely to happen in the next few months – for example, the first meeting with Trump, and the first major engagement with EU leaders.
The key is to build a strategy around them.
Building Burnham’s profile
Burnham needs to define himself as prime minister before opponents do it for him. The public do not know Burnham well. While he is loved in Manchester, the rest of the country needs to get to know him. Some of this will come in his good use of social media and his successful narration of his premiership. But there needs to be a strategic view too of how he is seen to be making the shift from Mayor to Prime Minister. The sort of questions that need answering are: a. How does he want to tell his own personal story - his family, his political journey, his hopes and fears, his interests and passions? b. What media vehicles best suit his new style of politics? c. How does he best engage with opponents? How does he demonstrate his aim of greater cross-party working? How should he handle PMQs? d. How does he remain an insurgent and not become just another incumbent? Should he have weekly/fortnightly town hall meetings? How should he use No 10 North as an antidote to Westminster business as usual? One sign of success would be that the political lobby has to create its own ‘Lobby North’ to reflect the amount of activity going on outside of London.
Designing a ‘playlist’ of big issues and arguments that need to be fought for each day.
What are the four or five big things that the government is fighting for on a daily/weekly basis? This is where the idea of a story factory comes in. Each of these needs a constant stream of media stories to win the argument and show progress. How does the prime minister’s diary reflect these priorities? E.g. a. Building more social housing b. Growth in every postcode c. Fairer utility bills d. Parity of esteem in education between academic and technical e. Reform of social care
One of the many reasons why the British government has been so unstable in recent years has been the lack of strategy and strategic capacity in Number 10. Short-term tactics have dominated over long-term strategy. Now is the time to reassert the importance of having clear objectives for each three-month period and relentlessly pursuing them. That is a good way of showing ‘grip’ and providing the clarity and purpose Britain so desperately needs.
Head North Any Burnham and Steve Rotherham (2024) Bella Caledonia is an important Scottish site and this is what one of its editors, Mike Small, had to say about Burnham Burnham’s first task to establish that he is not simply a replacement for Starmer, is to set out his plan for Britain, and much of his thinking stems from Head North. Some of the key ideas are:
A Written ConstitutionA Basic LawReform of the Voting SystemRemoval of the WhipA Senate of the Nations and RegionsFull DevolutionTwo Equal Paths in EducationA Grenfell LawA Hillsborough LawNet Zero to Reindustrialise the North
The platform emerges from the network called Mainstream, the Compass-founded
campaign group that provided policy work for Burnham to start to build a leadership
campaign. The Burnham movement sees itself as centre-left, and is motivated by a drive for progressive social policy, democratic reform and the need to provide a credible response to the rise of the far-right. The group were appalled by the regressive social policy of the Starmer government, the internal chaos and factionalism and the astonishing mismanagement of the Peter Mandelson appointment. They aim to overcome both the sense of internal chaos within Labour and the general feeling of Britain being moribund and in perpetual decline. It remains to be seen if Burnham will implement any or all of his ideas, or be thwarted
by the powers that be. But even as a nascent project it represents a political threat to
the SNP as it aims to reform the UK both constitutionally and economically.
Let’s try and unpack some of their ideas. At the centre of Burnham’s political project is a form of constitutional reform including
creating a written constitution, reform of the voting system, creating a Senate of the
Nations and Regions, and something called ‘Full Devolution’. These proposals could
be transformative, but they do land in an uncomfortable way. What is the democratic
forum in which these ideas have been developed? It feels like, and this is true of the
Burham project as a whole, as ‘democracy from above’. And the whole constitutional
reform project also sits uncomfortably with the deeper constitutional crisis that still
haunts Britain. Dr Ryan Swift, writing for the IPPR has noted (On Home Ground) : “Devolution must
become the organising principle of a rewired, forward-looking UK – one that drives
economic growth and reduces regional inequalities, renews democracy and rebuilds
political trust from the bottom up, and becomes firmly established within the governance
of the country.” But while this feels radical it doesn’t really get to grips with the deeper
national questions at play here. Instead, it tries to just bypass them. Swift again: “The conversation on regional devolution shouldn’t stop at England’s
borders. Greater regional devolution within Scotland and Wales for cities like Glasgow,
Edinburgh and Cardiff could complement national devolution by strengthening cities
and local economies while reducing the concentration of power within the devolved
governments themselves. A genuinely multi-level UK should recognise that
decentralisation is valuable at every level of government.” The F Bomb, again It feels like an agenda for breathing some democracy into English local government.
But that’s not really the same as genuine constitutional reform. It’s noted, too, that the
language has shifted from ‘abolish the House of Lords’ to ‘reform the upper chamber’.
Burnham’s revelation that Britain has power and wealth concentrated in London may
be amazeballs to the political class but it’s not exactly news to Scots.
Essentially, this is bits of Gordon Brown’s blueprint document. That’s certainly true of
the Council of Nations and Regions shtick. As John Denham wrote in 2024: “Today Keir Starmer will chair the first meeting of the
Council of Nations and Regions (CNR). It’s an innovation
with an important message about Labour working to
deliver across the UK. But how much difference will it
make to the way the United Kingdom and its nations are run? The Council has its origins in Gordon Brown’s report on the future of the UK which recommended ‘a new and powerful institution to drive co-operation between all its governments – a Council of the Nations and Regions.’ I was critical of Brown for not being radical enough but I also warned that ‘Labour in government is usually less radical than in opposition’. That’s certainly the case with the new Council.” He goes on: “Brown wanted the Council of Nations and Regions based in statute, with an independent secretariat. It was to be part of a series of constitutional changes, including stronger legal protection for the devolved parliaments, the replacement of the Lords with a union-wide second chamber, a new Council of England to represent English mayors and local government, and a new body to bring together the First Ministers with the UK Prime Minister.” “Today’s Council was reportedly set up without even informing the Scottish government and will, it seems, be run out of Whitehall’s Cabinet Office by the recently demoted Sue Gray. While Brown’s Lords reform did raise some serious difficulties, the King’s Speech contained no proposals to give the CNR legal status and the rest of Brown’s proposals have, for now at least, disappeared.” I didn’t quite know what was meant by ‘Removal of the whip’. The Guardian journalist
Andrew Sparrow explained: “In the book they suggest getting rid of the whipping system
altogether. But now Burnham is proposing whipping-lite – in particular, not suspending
people who vote against govt whip.” There’s a strong element of the zeitgeisty ‘consensus’ speak that is all the rage among
wonks and the chattering class. In 2024 Burnham made a speech advocating that a Grenfell Law should be introduced to
enshrine the right for decent housing for every citizen in Britain. He said: “We need a new
housing-first strategy, because you can’t have anything without a good home. It should
be a human right for everyone to have a decent, secure home and that’s what we should
be working towards.”
real threat to the arguments for Scottish independence because it posits the idea, again, that Britain is reformable. But the constitutional reforms are so wracked with inconsistencies and contradictions Ask Andy Anything Burnham has made great play of Mamdani-like sessions in which you could Ask Andy
Anything. He did this in Cardiff city-centre the other day. It’s a good look. One question
would be: “If this is a voluntary Union, what is the democratic way to leave it?” But, if the
answer is there isn’t one (dear readers – that is the answer) then all of the policy
proposals about Mayors and constitutions seem an odd distraction. But my notes on the inadequacy of Burnham’s constitutional programme are complemented
by other observations about the absence of power analysis in Labour’s outlook. European
Powell points out that: “Andy Burnham is days away from becoming Prime Minister.
His incoming chief of staff is James Purnell, CEO of Flint Global, a corporate lobbying firm
whose clients include Amazon, Uber, BP, Airbnb, Apple and Thames Water, the utility
Burnham says should be nationalised. In December 2025, Flint was acquired by private
equity firm Cinven for £190 million. The firm at the centre of a Burnham government is not
merely connected to corporate capital. It is owned by it.” “While at Flint, Purnell told
corporate clients to expect deregulation, no tax rises, and spending cuts. That is the stated
position of the man who will occupy the most powerful unelected role in the British government
.” This political/apolitical trope is played out in an interview Andy Burnham has with Gary
Lineker in which he said he didn’t want to “create new divisions” when asked if he would
set up a wealth tax:
Burnham does not have Starmer’s fatal flaw, of an almost complete lack of any policy ambition whatsoever. However he is divorced from any political base and guilty, like his predecessor, of constant flip-flops. As Grace Blakeley points out (The Labour Machine always wins): “Burnham has managed to ingratiate himself with what remains of the Labour left over the last
few years, thanks in part to some genuinely impressive achievements as Mayor of Greater
Manchester. But a cursory look at Burnham’s public statements during his recent campaign
reveals a politician just as slippery and opportunistic as Starmer.” “As Harriet Williamson shows in this excellent video for Novara media, Burnham has made
multiple, contradictory promises to different factions within the Labour Party. He says he’s
going to invest in public services, while also sticking to Rachel Reeves’ nonsensical fiscal
rules. He has previously articulated liberal attitudes towards migration, but recently
supported Shabana Mahmood’s draconian immigration reforms. He’s criticised the Israeli
government, but refused to call out Israel’s genocide.” “This opportunism is, of course, what
makes Burnham palatable to the Labour machine. To be sure, he is not their preferred
candidate. They would prefer someone like Wes Streeting, who has clearly demonstrated his
obedience by taking vast donations from private healthcare lobbyists only to advocate
ceaselessly for greater private involvement in the NHS. Burnham hasn’t been quite so
grasping. But he has flip-flopped enough times for the Labour machine’s apparatchiks to
accept he is no threat to their project.” Burnham’s project is over-sold because the British
political class thinks it’s radical to point out that Britain has a concentration of wealth and
power in London. Manchesterism is good but limited as explored by Mike Danson here
On No 10 North and the Limits of Manchesterism – Bella Caledonia and by Laurie
MacFarlane here: Scotland has already tried ‘Manchesterism’. It won’t solve Britain’s
economic crisis alone, The post-Starmer era is upon us, but Burnham is still wedded to centrist ideas of
ameliorative change that remain within the range of acceptable political discourse but are
woefully inadequate for the state we’re in
X
ThisThis podcast covers the main points And some other ideas from Will Davies in A Legitimacy Trap
When people do not see the state solving problems, faith that politics can improve their lives fades. This erosion is experienced first at the level of everyday life: in those potholes, waiting lists, and polluted rivers. Small-scale local problems can accumulate into national discontent. The damage is compounded when there appear to be no actors with the authority or ability to fix them. Market-conforming, low-visibility interventions – from planning reform to “nudge” policies – have been both too modest for the scale of the problems, and they have failed to produce a clear demonstration of state effectiveness. Furthermore, serious high-profile failures – such as the infected blood scandal – do not seem to result in adequate learning on the part of system designers. Without visible improvements in public services, the state will struggle to rebuild trust; yet repeated failures to improve them have simultaneously eroded support for the very measures (most notably higher taxation) required to do so.
Human Landscapes of my country Nazim Hismet (2001) The Productive State – a framework for Manchesterism Mark Williams (2026)
No comments:
Post a Comment