The Makerfield by-election – in which Andy Burnham swept to victory overnight – has been presented as a fight for the soul of Britain, but in a few years’ time we will look back upon it as a quaint sideshow in a long-lost world. As Britain spirals towards fiscal disaster, the days of having the likes of Andy Burnham trying to buy the electorate by showering them with spending promises are rapidly drawing to a close. Just how much could Burnham cost us if, as expected, he challenges Keir Starmer and goes on to become prime minister?
Social housing: Burnham has promised to relocate £39 billion earmarked for social and affordable housing to purely new social homes, to be funded by borrowing. He says that trying to push private developers to build social housing as part of their developments doesn’t work. Actually, developers have provided many thousands of social housing units over the past couple of decades, although councils and mayors have undermined this source of social housing by being too greedy and demanding excessive proportions of new estates to be affordable housing.
Nationalising utilities: Burnham has been a bit slippery on this. At times, he has stated that nationalisation of water and other utilities is ‘absolutely an option’ for a Labour government led by him. At others, his campaign has spoken of taking utilities under ‘greater public control’, suggesting that he might not press for public ownership of the assets but subject utility companies to some other, unspecified form of government control. There is a huge difference. If he really is planning to nationalise utilities it would cost many billions. The Starmer government has put the cost of nationalising water alone at £100 billion.
Social Care: Burnham has indicated that reforming the social care system would be a priority for him – as previous governments, too, have suggested, before doing very little. Burnham has suggested replacing inheritance tax with a ‘Social Care Levy’, but what this would mean in practice, beyond a simple rebranding exercise to try to make inheritance tax rises more acceptable in the eyes of the public, is not clear. The cost? Burnham’s proposals are too vague even to make a guess, other than to say they certainly won’t be saving us money.
Burnham has shown he is just as inclined towards flip-flopping as the PM he hopes to replace
Reinstating HS2 to Manchester: Burnham opposed Rishi Sunak’s announcement in October 2023 that the Manchester leg of the notoriously over-running project would be abandoned. He now says he wants to reinstate the project, this time funded not by central government but a mixture of private capital and a surcharge on business rates in areas which he deems will benefit from the project. The weakness in his vision is that there aren’t that many places which will benefit, given that HS2 trains will hurry past them without stopping. But it could mean a serious hit for businesses whether they want the project or not: the cost of the Manchester leg was put at £36 billion at the time of cancellation – and we know how HS2’s estimated costs have a habit of accelerating faster than the trains themselves.
Waspi women: Burnham has shown he is just as inclined towards flip-flopping as the PM he hopes to replace. Having first suggested that he wished to compensate the ‘Waspi’ women who feel aggrieved their pension age was raised from 60 to 65, he then changing his mind, saying that perhaps they could have some extra benefits but not full compensation. As on so many things, Burnham is somewhat scarce on details, but the cost of a compensation as recommended by the parliamentary and health service ombudsman has been estimated at £10.3 billion.
Reinstating a £2 cap on bus fares: This cost the Conservative government £210 million in the first ten months when the Conservatives introduced it in 2023.
So vague are Burnham’s policies that it is not possible to even nearly estimate what his premiership would cost the country. But it is a fair guess that the bond markets would not be impressed, whether Burnham himself feels ‘in hock’ to them or not.
Comments