Andy Burnham has declared he will govern 'faster and bolder' than Keir Starmer, according to Lisa Nandy. The outgoing prime minister himself complained about the slow pace of government, blaming layers of procedures and consultations that accumulate over time. Yet Burnham's ambition faces significant hurdles, including a jammed state machinery and tight public finances.
Starmer's Frustration with Speed
Keir Starmer, 18 months into his premiership, told MPs his biggest frustration was 'speed and the ability to get things done.' He argued that successive governments had added procedures to avoid mistakes, creating gridlock. Pollster Julian Gallie of Merlin Strategy notes that voters have been 'crying out for change for a decade,' citing Brexit, the Corbyn surge, Johnson's majority, and the 2024 Tory rout as desperate attempts to shift an immovable status quo.
Historical Precedents for Rapid Change
History shows that emergencies often enable swift action. Franklin Roosevelt's first 100 days saw 15 major laws passed amid the Great Depression. In 2008, the UK government nationalized half the banking system within hours of cashpoints drying up. During the pandemic, new laws locked citizens in their homes and bureaucracies improvised furlough schemes. Without such crises, the British state may indeed be too gummed-up to move.
Lisa Nandy predicts Burnham's administration will be 'faster and bolder,' suggesting the problem is personal rather than institutional. Starmer, described by Francis Fukuyama as embodying 'procedural fetishism,' seemed unwilling to take risks. In contrast, George Osborne in 2010 talked up a Greek-style crisis to justify deep cuts, implementing them 46 days after taking office.
Burnham's Care Reform Ambitions
Burnham has long agitated for a comprehensive care service. Louise Casey, chair of the adult social care commission, notes she has examined '22 previous commissions, reviews, green papers and white papers.' Burnham vows to spend 'political capital' on a solution. However, all meaningful reforms require more spending. Burnham recently voiced concerns about tax rises hitting employers and pensioners, hinting at easing off.
Michael Jacobs, a political economist in Burnham's circle, proposes subsidizing energy unit prices up to a certain usage level, roughly halving costs. He suggests funding this by raising capital gains tax to match income tax. Another idea is a temporary rent freeze, with the state buying properties sold by landlords for social housing. Jacobs envisions mass council house building through nationwide development corporations, capturing land value uplifts for the public.
Quick Wins from Pro-Competition Economist
Tim Leunig, architect of the pandemic furlough scheme, offers cheap, easy wins: abolishing ground rents for leaseholders, giving customers access to insurance algorithms, opening Virgin Media's cable network to rivals, and allowing generic drug manufacturers to state equivalence to branded products. Each requires an early row with vested interests but could make specific things cheaper.
Gallie identifies two voter sentiments: impatience and doubt that politics can make a difference. Some problems, like underinvestment and mental health shortages, take time. But voters may grant Burnham time if they see momentum. Jacobs' and Leunig's suggestions are noticeable steps that could dispel fears that politicians only talk.
The Starmer government was dynamic on renters' rights, employment rights, and net zero, where it knew what it wanted. The key question for Burnham is whether he knows his own mind. Once he masters the steering wheel, pressing the accelerator becomes easier.
