Over the last 72 hours, friends have wondered why I’m so delighted that Starmer has gone. Don’t you realise, they beseech, that Burnham will be even worse, more left-wing, more helpless in the face of trillions of pounds of debt and a gigantic cohort of economically illiterate MPs demanding ever more benefits for as many millions as possible? Don’t you realise that he has no answers and that being a more charismatic communicator changes nothing? Well, yes, I do, as it happens. I hope I’m wrong, but I’m sure Burnham will be pretty powerless to change anything at all. The sooner Labour, with whoever in charge, is kicked out, the sooner we’ll start to recover. But I still prefer him to Starmer. In fact, there’s no contest, and I rejoice in this change at the very top.
Starmer's Record on Honesty
I’ve lost count of the number of politicians, commentators and contributors who have come on the airwaves since Monday and described Starmer as a “decent” man. If they mean he’s polite in meetings, asks about people’s loved ones, is nice to children and small animals, and pays for his round, then I have every reason to think they’re right, though you could say that about the vast majority of MPs on all sides. But if you mean that he was open and honest with the voters, then I have to take serious issue with you. In fact, I think you’re either crackers or just haven’t paid attention.
As I’ve written on many occasions, when it comes to openness and honesty, Keir Starmer sits at the very bottom of the league table of prime ministers in my lifetime, stretching back to the mid-70s. U-turns, flip-flops, broken pledges, literally thousands of instances of question-dodging and a distasteful willingness to throw friends and colleagues under the bus, all wrapped within an outrageous insistence of integrity.
Starmer's Betrayal of Voters
In short, Keir Starmer was guilty of taking the voters for fools. Did he do that because he’s evil or amoral? No, I don’t believe so, though I’m being kinder than he is to his opponents. Perhaps, coming late in life to politics, he just assumed that all politicians behave like that, that the voters accept it, and that it’s the only way to keep power. But if that’s how he saw it, then he was wrong, wrong, wrong. And he’s paid the price.
Why Burnham Might Be Better
So, what of his likely successor? Andy Burnham is already accused of Starmer-like flip-flops, happily serving under the cabinets or shadow cabinets of leaders with such disparate world views as Blair, Brown, Miliband and Corbyn. He’s been a centrist, a Blairite, soft-left and just left, according to what suits. But, to be frank, such an ideological journey isn’t all that unusual, and he’s got a heck of a way to go to reach the epic levels of self-serving inconsistency of our current prime minister.
And that’s the lesson I trust Burnham will learn from these sorry last two years: that there may be short-term gain from taking the voters for fools, but all too soon it’ll come crashing down and you’ll end up in tears in front of the Downing Street cameras, convinced you’ve been hard done by, when in fact you only have yourself to blame.
Sadly, and with the best will in the world, Andy Burnham will almost certainly be a big disappointment as prime minister. But my bet is that the voters will forgive him, as we forgive others who have held that high office, so long as he treats us, the voters, with respect. Let’s see.
