Burnhamism: The Debasing of Government Authority

Andy Burnham is taking a hammer and chisel to the foundations of the British state. His obsession with parochial issues, such as parking fines, music on the Tube and the regulation of professional football through VAR, is further eroding the already weak foundations of the state as a credible, functioning political entity capable of governing for the moment.

The Prime Minister has reduced the British government to a glorified council or devolved administration. Through his lack of appreciation for the gravitas and power of his office, he has diminished the standing of government in the public’s perception.

The Prime Minister’s policy platform of localism, combined with his often cringeworthy and distasteful communications profile, presents the British state as an immature, tin-pot version of what it ought to be. Government announcements now parody those of local councils and regulatory watchdogs. Bans on hidden renewal clauses in subscription-based products, bus fare caps and penalties for ‘headphone dodgers’ are just the tip of the iceberg.

What I find most dangerous about these policies is not simply that they encourage the public to conclude that every problem, no matter how trivial or removed from the concerns of national policy, can be fixed by the most powerful man in the country. It is that they fundamentally diminish our expectations of what government is for.

Our Prime Minister, despite taking power at one of the most economically and geopolitically precarious moments in our history, has decided to demote himself to a councillor. Why? Either he is genuinely out of his depth or, as I think more likely (though the two are not mutually exclusive), he truly believes that British politics and government ought to have their oar in these issues.

As the ship of state crashes into waves of profound economic and policy challenges, Burnham is instead taking down the sails. His obsession with regional devolution has left this nation ill-prepared to meet the moment. It seems obvious to me, and to readers of the GBTT blog, but it needs to be said again: devolution is a constitutional issue that cannot and should not occupy the mind of our Prime Minister when our military is so desperately ill-prepared for conflict, our young people face unemployment and our energy prices remain so high.

Spending time devising devolution schemes and pondering electoral reform ought to be a luxury for a leader in times like these. Instead, it is one of the few things he is offering the country.

I am glad to see the mirage of the King of the North beginning to shatter as people demand decisive, consequential change at a national level. But Burnham’s obsession with tinkering with the minutiae of everyday life speaks to the core of his political philosophy. He believes the state can and should intervene to ‘make things better’ for people. It betrays a fundamental disregard for, and mistrust of, individuals and institutions to manage and regulate their own affairs.

The Prime Minister has suggested that he would ban Video Assistant Referees (VAR) from football in Labour’s next manifesto, following his appearance on LadBible. This is a matter for the Premier League and the FA, not the government.

Music being played too loudly on the Tube ought to be a matter for individuals to resolve through cultural norms and social convention.

Parking fines should be a matter for councils. Those who fail to honour the terms and conditions of using a parking space should expect consequences for their actions.

At this rate, the Prime Minister might legislate to enforce the ‘fair distribution’ of sweets among trick-or-treaters, commit to examining how he might encourage people to hold doors open for colleagues in the office, or opine on the social good of washing the dishes straight after dinner.

Prime Minister, I beseech you: tend to matters of state, not matters for petty bureaucrats.

The right of British politics must have an antidote ready. one that not only rejects the policy of state interference and diktat in our everyday lives, but also revives the belief that individuals should have the agency to effect change through the law and our institutions, alongside the responsibility to look after themselves.

If Britain is to change course, we must espouse the virtues of having very few, but good, laws. We must also recover the belief that a good state is not one that wades into matters such as parking fines, but one that knows where its responsibilities begin and end.

The office of Prime Minister, held by some of the greatest Britons in our history — from Gladstone and Lloyd George to Churchill, Attlee and Thatcher — should never again be dragged into the banal politics of the lowest-hanging fruit.

Burnhamism is an experiment in changing the role of the British state, and it has significant ramifications for our ability to govern effectively and our credibility on the world stage.