There’s been much comment on the appointment of James Purnell as Andy Burnham’s chief of staff. Along with the widely touted return of David Miliband, it’s a sign of how the near-certain next Prime Minister is going back to the future, recruiting fellow cabinet ministers from the last time Burnham was in government, under Gordon Brown.
There are plenty within the Labour party who have grave doubts about his suitability for the job of PM
But Purnell’s appointment has another resonance, one which should be less to Burham’s liking. In the context of Burnham’s ascent to the premiership, Purnell’s most relevant contribution to British politics was not his time as Work of Pensions Secretary but, rather, his resignation.
In June 2009, on the night of a disastrous performance by Labour in the local and European elections, Purnell left the government, with one specific purpose. Brown should, he said, “stand aside to give our party a fighting chance of winning the next election”. It turned out to be a futile gesture. David Miliband, the man Purnell hoped would take over, refused to join the attempted coup and stayed put as foreign secretary. Brown remained and Labour left office after the 2010 election.
But Brown’s deficiencies as a leader were obvious to many Labour MPs and members back in 2007 when he assumed the leadership without a contest. His manifest flaws were widely known, not the least of which was that he was unable to articulate any real reason why he wanted the job or what he would do with it. Added to that was widespread resentment over the deeply tribal clique which had buttressed Brown as Chancellor and their repeated hostile briefings against colleagues. Yet the only MP who even tried to mount a challenge to Brown’s coronation was John McDonnell, from the hard left, and he couldn’t secure the necessary 45 votes.
The story which springs to mind is that of The Emperor’s New Clothes, which is about what happens when no one has the courage to point out that something they are told to believe in is obviously false or worthless. Only when one boy points out what everyone already knew but refused to act on does reality dawn.
Sixteen years later, here we are again. Burnham’s flaws are very different – where, for example, Brown was obsessed with minutiae, Burnham is renowned for having little interest in detail (a sympathetic Manchester housing expert told Labour Hub: “His big weakness is a lack of grasp of policy…surface-level and faddy”). He believes that Britain suffers from “too little interventionism”. His economic programme – which seems to be based on the idea that higher taxes, especially on the middle classes, will lead to growth – would be ruinous. He has no experience of foreign policy, defence or economic policy (beyond a period as Chief Secretary to the Treasury). One economist fears that Burnham’s first Budget will “make Liz Truss look like a [fucking] savant”.
There are many other issues with Burnham that have yet to be properly tested – such as his record in Manchester – because he has only allowed one mainstream journalist, Andrew Marr, to question him since returning to the Commons. And when he did supposedly submit himself to questioning – on Reddit, last week – the results were risible.
His own campaign team decided which questions he would answer, so “Ask Me Anything” was in reality “ask me anything and I’ll decide whether to answer”.
In the context of his putative Labour leadership, he is not (like Brown) going to face a challenge of any sort. And yet, as also with Brown in 2007, there are plenty within the Labour party who have grave doubts about his suitability for the job of PM.
In the face of a wave of inevitability about Burnham’s accession, they have sought to convince themselves that the emperor’s new clothes are indeed sparkly and magnificent.
Nominations do not close until 16 July. There is still time for Labour MPs to point out that Burnham’s new clothes are, in reality, nothing more than a black T-shirt and tightly fitting shorts. Labour can avoid another Brown if it decides to.
Comments