Ed Miliband, Andy Burnham and the Battle Over the Chancellor’s Job
The decision by Prime Minister Andy Burnham to appoint John Healey as Chancellor rather than Ed Miliband has reportedly caused disappointment within Labour circles, with former Labour politician and New Labour figure Ed Balls suggesting that Miliband felt “furious and let down” by the decision. The episode highlights the complex relationships inside the Labour Party and raises important questions about Burnham’s political direction, his economic priorities and the role he wants Miliband to play in his government. Recent reporting confirms that Miliband had been widely regarded as one of the leading contenders for the Treasury job, making his exclusion from the position one of the most significant surprises of Burnham’s first cabinet.
Ed Miliband is hardly an outsider in Labour politics. He has spent much of his career at the centre of the party’s debates about economic policy, climate change, public services and the role of government. He served as Labour leader from 2010 to 2015 and later became an important figure in the party’s front bench under Keir Starmer. As Energy Security and Net Zero Secretary, he developed a reputation as one of the strongest advocates of Labour’s green agenda. His experience and political profile naturally made him a plausible candidate for one of the most powerful jobs in government.
The possibility of Miliband becoming Chancellor was therefore taken seriously by political observers. In July 2026, The Guardian argued that Burnham needed a strong Chancellor capable of combining fiscal credibility with ambitious economic reform, and described Miliband as an obvious choice. The editorial pointed to his experience in fiscal, industrial and climate policy and argued that he would have the political weight necessary to challenge established Treasury thinking.
Yet Burnham chose John Healey instead. The decision was described as a major surprise because Healey had been associated primarily with defence rather than the Treasury. His appointment suggested that Burnham was not simply looking for the politician with the strongest economic credentials. Instead, the new Prime Minister appeared to be prioritising political trust, ministerial experience and perhaps a particular understanding of how his government should operate. Ed Balls and George Osborne have since discussed the significance of the decision, questioning why Healey was chosen over the more obvious candidates.
For Miliband, the decision may be particularly difficult because he had substantial reasons to believe that he could have been a strong candidate. He possesses a combination of cabinet experience, policy knowledge and familiarity with the machinery of government that few Labour politicians can match. He also understands the challenges surrounding Britain’s transition to a low-carbon economy, an issue likely to remain central to Burnham’s economic programme.
The reported disappointment is also significant because of Miliband’s long relationship with Burnham. Their political careers developed within the same generation of Labour politicians. Both competed for the Labour leadership in 2010 following Gordon Brown’s resignation. That contest was highly competitive, with Ed Miliband narrowly defeating his brother David in the final result. Burnham also participated in the contest, eventually finishing behind the Miliband brothers, Ed Balls and Diane Abbott.
The leadership contest created relationships and rivalries that continued for years. Burnham and Miliband represented different strands of Labour politics, even though both were part of the generation that emerged during the New Labour era. Burnham increasingly developed a political identity associated with the north of England, devolution and the concerns of communities that he believed had become disconnected from Westminster politics. Miliband, meanwhile, became increasingly associated with environmental policy and a more interventionist approach to the economy.
Their contrasting political identities may help explain Burnham’s decision. As Prime Minister, Burnham has an opportunity to construct a government around his own political philosophy. Choosing a Chancellor is therefore about much more than selecting the person with the best résumé. The Chancellor controls the Treasury, plays a decisive role in economic policy and inevitably becomes one of the most powerful figures in any government. A Prime Minister who appoints someone to that role must be confident that the Chancellor shares his fundamental political priorities.
John Healey may offer Burnham something different from Miliband. He has extensive experience of senior government positions and, importantly, has worked closely with Burnham’s generation of Labour politicians. Recent reporting about Burnham’s first cabinet described the appointment as part of a broader attempt to establish a new political direction for the government.
The decision does not necessarily mean that Miliband has been marginalised. In fact, his appointment as Foreign Secretary gives him another major role at the centre of government. Foreign policy can carry enormous political significance, particularly during a period of international instability. Miliband’s experience and public profile make him a valuable member of Burnham’s cabinet even if he did not receive the Treasury position.
Nevertheless, there is an unavoidable political message in the decision. A Chancellor is normally one of the Prime Minister’s closest political partners. The Treasury controls public spending, taxation and much of the government’s economic strategy. By choosing Healey, Burnham has signalled that he wants the economic agenda to develop under different leadership from that expected by many commentators.
That choice could become increasingly important if Burnham pursues an ambitious programme of public investment and regional devolution. His political project is closely connected with the idea that Britain needs to move away from excessive centralisation and give greater power to regions and local institutions. The Chancellor will be crucial to making such a programme financially credible. The Treasury has traditionally been one of the most centralising departments in Whitehall, so Burnham needs someone capable of managing the tension between national fiscal discipline and regional investment.
Miliband would arguably have been well suited to that challenge. His political career has been defined by an interest in structural economic change, energy policy and the role of government in shaping markets. He has also demonstrated a willingness to challenge business practices and argue for stronger government intervention. Critics, however, have sometimes questioned whether such an approach could create uncertainty for financial markets or private investors. The Guardian noted that concerns about Miliband’s positioning and his reputation among parts of the business community may have contributed to doubts about appointing him Chancellor.
This creates a fascinating contradiction. Miliband may be one of the politicians best equipped to implement an economically transformative agenda, but precisely because of that ambition, he may also have been considered a risky choice for the Treasury. Burnham might want economic reform, but he may not want the Chancellor to become an independent political centre of power capable of dominating the government’s economic narrative.
The history of British politics contains many examples of tensions between Prime Ministers and Chancellors. The Chancellor has enormous influence because every major government policy ultimately involves money. A politically ambitious Chancellor can become a rival power centre, particularly if he or she develops a strong public profile. Burnham therefore had to consider not only who could perform the job effectively, but also what kind of political relationship he wanted between Downing Street and the Treasury.
For Miliband, being passed over may therefore represent more than personal disappointment. It could be interpreted as evidence that Burnham intends to build a government in which different political figures have carefully defined roles. Miliband remains important, but he will not necessarily be at the centre of domestic economic decision-making.
The situation is particularly interesting given the longstanding connections between Burnham, Miliband and Ed Balls. All three emerged from the same generation of Labour politicians and were involved in the party’s internal struggles following the 2010 election defeat. Balls himself was a prominent economic figure and later became Shadow Chancellor under Miliband. His support for Miliband’s potential appointment therefore carries political and personal significance.
The broader lesson is that cabinet appointments are rarely based solely on technical competence. Personality, trust, political loyalty, ideological compatibility and strategic calculations all matter. A politician can be exceptionally qualified for a position and still be passed over because the Prime Minister wants someone else to shape the government’s direction.
Ultimately, Burnham’s choice of Healey will be judged by results rather than speculation. If Healey succeeds in stabilising the economy, increasing investment and delivering Burnham’s regional agenda, the decision to bypass Miliband may quickly be forgotten. If the government struggles economically, however, critics may return to the question of whether a more economically focused Chancellor such as Miliband would have been better equipped for the task.
For now, the episode reveals the complicated nature of Labour politics under Andy Burnham. His government contains experienced figures with competing political identities, and managing those personalities will be almost as important as managing the country’s finances. Miliband’s reported frustration illustrates the personal dimension of that challenge.
The Chancellor’s job may have gone to John Healey, but Ed Miliband remains a major figure within the government. His role as Foreign Secretary gives him considerable influence, while his experience in energy, climate and economic policy means that his ideas will remain relevant to Burnham’s programme. Whether the two men can turn their different political instincts into a successful partnership will be one of the defining questions of the new government.
The reported snub, therefore, should not be viewed simply as a story about one politician losing a prestigious job. It is a story about power, trust and political strategy. Burnham has chosen the team he believes can deliver his vision. Miliband must now demonstrate that his influence does not depend on occupying the Treasury. And the British public will ultimately decide whether Burnham’s controversial decision produced the government capable of delivering the economic and political transformation he has promised.