The John Griff Column: Keep your friends close – and your enemies closer

On Monday, Andy Burnham broke cover in the warmest, safest environment he could have found to speak – Manchester. Will he end up facing an internal party election though, or will his be a coronation? Did Monday’s speech as prospective Labour leader and the next Prime Minister install ‘hope in every heart’ with the prospect of ‘good growth in every postcode’?

Setting out his 10 year plan stall – and it IS his stall – it was an articulate performance from one looking to sweep away with one stroke all possible competition for the now vacant post AND put his party onto a stable path in whatever time remains before the next General Election.

If we forget our own political leanings though – who was his audience on Monday? Party? The other parties? Or the wider public which could put him into Downing Street – or ‘Number 10 North’ at the next general election? He cautioned against speculation as to who might be part of his cabinet, and took the heat away from the current incumbents. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in particular might well have been relieved.        

What was his messaging? Who was it appealing to? What was his language? How accessible was it and what did he say that was credible and achievable? The speech had something for almost everyone and seemed like a personal manifesto, written to encourage the faithful to support him internally. It also set out a national, if not an international agenda for the world to pick over. Perhaps getting ahead of due process, it included trade and business elements, support for the armed forces and defence, plus a promise of practical action to devolve power away from London to the regions. There was more too. The menu included something for education, housing, business and industry – while Whitehall was served notice that if Burnham has his way, some might have to consider a relocation package, if not employment elsewhere.

There was something for the other party leaders too, in a performance by somebody with current experience of running the country’s largest council and who wants to adopt a devolutionary agenda. Will it prompt yet another debate over the future of the Union, particularly if there is going to be a local government carve-up in England? Where will real budgetary control and spending sit, away from Westminster?

In front of the media’s cameras and microphones, this was a performance of somebody who knew how to read – and play – to the room. Burnham articulated a serious desire to seriously shake up the existing way in which government works – or, in his opinion, DOESN’T work for everyone, everywhere. He even used a little humour, using an aside to gently chide the BBC’s Chris Mason by name. Safely installed in Manchester where he sees Number 10 North being sited, he came across as genial, businesslike, impassioned, and aware of the task ahead. Just as he needs to.  

But how achievable will any of his manifesto be? What will the costs of tearing apart and building a new model for a devolved form of government? Just how much devolution might actually take place, and how will the country pay its way on the wider stage when those costs are broken into domestic and international commitments to our allies and trading partners? What will be the costs of the heralded expansion in council housing? Who will pay for it, how, and when? Manchester is NOT Northampton, and neither is Northampton Manchester in miniature. Nationalisation is fine in principle but it needs to be efficient in practice – a huge challenge. Does devolution bring equality, and if so, on what terms? How might Westminster – or ‘Manchesterism’ – carve up the financial cake so that whatever goes to the regional supermayors is seen as equitable for all, by all? And what of the NHS?

I watched the speech as it played out live. As you see, I ended up with a lot of questions. Others will have many more to pose, not just to one politician, but to ALL politicians, be they local, regional, national or international. And that’s before anyone considers the politics of the politicians. No party can operate without the support of the public – so how much of Mr Burnham’s speech was aimed not at his own party, but a wider electorate? Are we radicalised or reassured by what was said on Monday? Can we be both?

This country has seen six Prime Ministers in the past ten years. If Andy Burnham becomes the seventh in a few short weeks, will he be granted the ten years his plan says it needs?

It will be for others to decide – in every postcode.