Britain has another Prime Minister

The irony is that Manchester is more ‘middle’ than ‘north’ in terms of the British Isles, and internal devolution has already taken place. Scotland is partly governed by its own parliament and civil culture, Wales has a now turbulent Senedd, Northern Ireland is not worth mentioning, and many major cities are ruled by powerful mayors, such as Burnham himself. As his train journey highlighted, almost everything in Britain is north or west of London, and that includes mentality as well as geography. Burnham’s tabloid headline “King in the North”, which he can hardly resist, sounds strange.

After arriving and a quick change from the casual attire he favors (think cool English teacher) to a suit, he traveled to Westminster to meet two hundred Labor colleagues in the first phase of what has consistently been described as a coronation rather than a leadership contest. It is extraordinary that a man who was not even in Parliament a little over a month ago would be leader of the party by acclamation a few days later and, ipso facto, the new Prime Minister.

He has an almost Gerald Fordish quality, except Burnham is more agile and lighter on his feet. Its intellectual hinterland, however, is not easy to map. He admits that his Catholicism is a matter of training rather than active belief. He studied English at Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, a good school – its famous alumni include Joseph Stiglitz, chief economist at the World Bank, and fellow economist and Nobel laureate Angus Deaton – but a university without the “glittering prizes” aura of some of its neighbors and those at Oxford. Burnham has earned a decent degree and has the cheerful turn of phrase that sometimes characterizes belles-lettristes. However, he claims to have felt like a “fraud” at Cambridge, which may be true, or perhaps a way of polishing his simpler credentials.

What can Westminster expect from Burnham? He showed his colors in favor of what is now known as “Manchesterism”, a term borrowed from the 19th century free trade movement of John Bright and Richard Cobden. Burnham co-wrote a book with another municipal mayor titled Head northwhich sets out an agenda for a “more equal Britain”. He will have his work cut out for him not to be accused of joining the London elite who, in the eyes of northerners, maintains almost as a matter of right the “North/South divide” supposed to divide Britain between the haves and the have-nots, between those who are heard too insistently and those who are not heard.

Burnham’s policies can be defined as pro-business socialism. It emerged at the time of Blair’s New Labor experiment, which was basically Thatcherism with a slightly friendlier face. Burnham considers his vote for the Iraq War one of his darkest and most shameful moments, and in other ways he has distanced himself from the Blair-Brown legacy. He does not need to distance himself from former Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Burnham’s modest enthusiasm – he looks younger than his fifty-six years – obviously contrasts with Starmer’s gray-man sincerity. One can imagine Burnham jumping up and down at a Stone Roses concert or invading the pitch during an Everton goal. Starmer’s anhedonic attitude made former prime minister Teresa May’s admission almost salacious that her naughtiest youthful act was running through a wheat field.

What can Britain expect from Burnham? He had previously made two bids for the Labor leadership, in 2005 and 2010, falling in the latter to Jeremy Corbyn, who ushered in a dark and unelectable iteration of modern Labour. He was therefore long considered a promising and ambitious man. He has a reputation as an inveterate people-pleaser, promising more than he can deliver. Burnham can claim some success as mayor of Greater Manchester, particularly with the city’s once chaotic transport system, but insiders are clear that the credit goes to his senior officials. Even if we view running a big city as a microcosm of running a country, Burnham will quickly learn that the same regional incongruences that form the basis of his deliberately imprecise manifesto will be the very ones that trip him up.

There are other factors as well. Interestingly, British right-wing commentators, even when predicting a disastrous administration, do so with an element of sympathy, even pity, as when watching a brave boy step in, knowing he is going to be brutally overthrown. Burnham’s opponents sardonically predict that achieving what he has pursued for twenty years will make him very unhappy indeed. The facts are that the British economy is in serious trouble. Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves, who won’t will continue his work in Burnham’s first cabinet, borrowed £140 billion in the last financial year. On top of the borrowing from the previous two years, there is a $530 billion bill waiting to be ‘settled’ – and this at a time when the National Health Service is drowning in administrative burdens and there is a growing call to support Britain’s increasingly Ruritanian armed forces.

It remains to be seen whether Burnham has the formula to approach all of this with conviction. How he will handle another important issue, that of relations with Donald Trump, could prove entertaining. He won’t pick up the papers or tissues left by Trump, that’s for sure. He remains committed to supporting Ukraine, but it is now an almost bipartisan position. The consensus remains that when the euphoria subsides and the “money is gone” notes are found in the drawers, Labor could wipe out even the dynamic Burnham. Which could lead him to turn to his beloved Smiths for comfort. One word stands out above all: I was looking for a job, then I found a job / And God knows I’m unhappy now.

We appreciate your comments on this article. Please send your response to [email protected].