Kemi Badenoch (Image: Getty Images)
We now know exactly what kind of government Andy Burnham is running: a classic Labour government that wants to spend more, tax more, and send the bill to working people.
It’s not just me saying it. On Monday evening, Burnham’s adviser Andy Haldane, former chief economist of the Bank of England and now President of the British Chambers of Commerce said that Burnham was running ‘a traditional tax and spend socialist government with better TikTok videos.’
Get personal finance news, money saving tips and advice plus selcted offers and competitions
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Express readers know a country cannot TikTok its way out of bond market crisis. But that is where we are. In the past few weeks, government borrowing costs have surged to their highest levels in decades.
And the result? Inflation is up, unemployment is up, and the impact will land on working people and businesses.
Meanwhile Andy Burnham and Chancellor John Healey are gearing up to raise taxes again at the budget.
When the sums do not add up, it is always taxpayers who are expected to make up the difference. Businesses are asked for more. Families are asked for more. Mortgage rates are climbing. And still the Government cannot bring spending under control.
Hard-working taxpayers are not an endlessly rechargeable credit card for politicians who cannot say no.
The worst part of this is that we have been here before.
Andy Burnham seems strangely nostalgic for an economic era that many Express readers will remember rather less fondly.
In his return to the Commons, Burnham moaned that Britain had been going down the wrong path since the late 1970s.
For any reader too young to remember that era: it was the time of the Winter of Discontent, rubbish piled high in the streets, public services on strike. Even the gravediggers walked out.
Hardly a golden age worth reviving.
Winter of discontent (Image: Mirrorpix)
Not every economic problem begins in Downing Street. But governments do control how resilient they make their own finances.
They choose how much they spend, whether they reform welfare, and whether every problem requires another programme, another subsidy or another raid on the taxpayer.
Haldane described the Government’s fiscal ‘Achilles’ heel’ as its unwillingness or inability to reduce public spending.
His prescription was not another tax rise, but getting serious about spending, welfare and public-sector productivity.
And somebody always has to pay.
Labour talks about ‘government money’ as though Whitehall has discovered a magical cash machine beneath the Treasury.
Taxpayers know better – mainly because it is their money being spent.
It is the money earned by the person getting up at six in the morning, by the family wondering why every month feels tighter, and by businesses trying to hire, invest or keep the lights on.
That is what fiscal responsibility means.
It is not just saying the right words while producing another slick social media clip. It means taking difficult decisions – rewarding work, controlling spending and creating the conditions for the people and businesses who grow our economy to succeed.
And Conservatives should be prepared to make those decisions.
We will get spending under control. We will reform welfare. We will back the people who work, save, build businesses and create jobs.
We will not pretend that every difficult choice can be avoided by asking taxpayers for a little bit more.
Because eventually there is no more.
Andy Burnham needs to stop trying to please everyone with somebody else’s money and start taking some of those decisions himself.
It might make him less popular with some of those demanding ever more from the state.
But governing is about making tough decisions.
History has an unfortunate habit of repeating itself when politicians refuse to learn from it.
The last Labour Winter of Discontent came to symbolise a government that had lost control of events.
Nobody should want to recreate that.
So on this, Mr Haldane has identified something important.
Old-fashioned tax-and-spend socialism risks becoming an old-fashioned Labour Winter of Discontent but with an algorithm.
And if Andy Burnham chooses to call an early election, the British public will get to make their judgement in a spring reckoning for Labour.
Let’s see how well TikTok captures that.
Andy Burnham Is Punishing Britain with “Old-Fashioned Tax-and-Spend Socialism”
Andy Burnham’s arrival in Downing Street has opened a new chapter in British politics, but it has also revived an old argument about the role of the state. Critics of the new Labour government have accused the Prime Minister of pursuing an “old-fashioned tax-and-spend socialist” agenda, warning that higher public spending, greater state intervention and expanded public services could eventually place a heavier burden on taxpayers.
The accusation is politically charged, however, and Burnham himself rejects the idea that his government is simply returning to traditional tax-and-spend politics. On 16 September, as inflation and borrowing costs put additional pressure on the government’s finances, Burnham said that difficult decisions would be necessary and rejected the suggestion that his approach was simply one of tax and spending.
The disagreement nevertheless exposes one of the biggest questions facing the new government: how can Burnham deliver his ambitious programme while keeping Britain’s public finances under control?
Burnham became Prime Minister on 20 July 2026 after previously serving as Mayor of Greater Manchester. His government has promised a significant restructuring of the British state, including greater powers for regions and local communities, stronger public control over essential services and a long-term programme of economic reconstruction.
His first speech as Prime Minister was unusually explicit about the scale of his ambitions.
Burnham argued that Britain had become too centralised and that economic power had been concentrated in too few places. His government, he said, would move political power away from Westminster and towards communities across the country. He also promised greater public control over essential services, more council housing and a more preventative approach to public policy.
To supporters, this represents a fundamental attempt to rebuild Britain’s economic and social infrastructure.
To critics, it raises an obvious question: how much will it cost?
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned that Burnham inherited a difficult fiscal position, with high debt-interest costs and limited room for manoeuvre. The organisation noted that his ambitions, including expanding council-house building and reforming social care, could involve substantial upfront spending.
That financial reality is crucial.
Governments can promise better public services, cheaper transport, more housing and increased investment, but ultimately those policies must be paid for through taxation, borrowing, reductions in other spending or stronger economic growth.
Burnham’s government has attempted to present its programme as investment rather than simply consumption.
The Prime Minister argues that spending money on housing, infrastructure, skills and prevention can reduce future costs. His first speech explicitly linked council-house construction to reducing the welfare bill and meeting the government’s fiscal rules.
The argument is based on a relatively simple economic principle: spending more today can sometimes reduce spending tomorrow.
Building affordable housing, for example, could reduce pressure on temporary accommodation and housing benefits. Investing in preventative healthcare could potentially reduce demand for expensive treatment later. Improving skills and employment could reduce welfare dependency while increasing tax revenues.
But these benefits are not automatic.
Public investment only improves the government’s financial position if it produces sufficient economic and social returns. A programme can be expensive without delivering the expected savings. This is why the government’s ability to measure outcomes will be critical.
One of Burnham’s most important policies is his devolution programme.
The government has announced plans to give regional leaders greater control over jobs, transport, housing and public services. Mayors will also retain a share of income-tax and business-rates revenues, allowing regions to benefit more directly when their economies grow.
The government describes this as the biggest transfer of power from Westminster in a generation.
But critics have raised concerns about the cost of creating additional layers of government. A recent analysis reported that staffing costs across nine combined authorities had risen substantially, with the TaxPayers’ Alliance arguing that devolution risks creating an expensive additional bureaucracy without necessarily reducing staffing at existing councils.
The government takes a different view, arguing that stronger local government can improve public services and stimulate regional economic growth.
This disagreement illustrates the wider ideological divide.
The traditional conservative argument is that governments should limit taxation and public spending, leaving individuals and businesses with more money to invest and spend themselves.
The traditional socialist argument places greater emphasis on collective provision and government intervention, particularly in areas such as healthcare, housing, transport and social security.
Burnham’s policies clearly place considerable emphasis on public intervention. His government has promised more council homes, stronger public control of essential services and greater government involvement in industrial policy.
Yet that does not necessarily mean that Britain is returning to an unlimited “tax-and-spend” model.
Burnham has repeatedly committed his government to fiscal rules. The House of Lords Library reports that he pledged during the Labour leadership campaign to maintain the previous government’s fiscal framework and confirmed that commitment after becoming Prime Minister.
The government has also said that the 28 October Budget will be built around fiscal discipline.
This is significant because Britain’s economic position gives Burnham relatively little room for mistakes.
Inflation reached 3.1 per cent in August, according to recent reporting, while borrowing costs have risen. The 30-year gilt yield has reached levels not seen since the late 1990s, increasing the cost of government debt.
Higher borrowing costs mean that every additional pound of government debt can become more expensive to service.
That makes the upcoming Budget particularly important.
Chancellor John Healey faces the difficult task of financing the government’s priorities while maintaining credibility with financial markets and complying with fiscal rules. Analysts have identified a potential gap in the public finances and reported that options under consideration could include tax increases and changes to spending.
The political pressure is therefore coming from both directions.
On one side are those demanding more investment in public services. On the other are taxpayers and businesses concerned that further taxation could weaken economic growth.
Business groups have already expressed concern about possible tax increases. Retailer Next, for example, warned that higher taxes could worsen weak UK growth and create additional pressure on businesses and consumers.
This does not prove that tax rises would damage the economy in every circumstance. Government spending can also support demand and investment. But it demonstrates why the government’s fiscal choices will have consequences beyond Whitehall.
One of Burnham’s responses has been to focus heavily on the cost of living.
His government has announced measures including the removal of VAT from household electricity bills and a proposed £2 cap on single bus fares. The House of Commons Library has documented several of these early cost-of-living measures.
These policies are designed to put money back into household budgets.
The difficulty is that reducing one household cost does not necessarily eliminate the underlying fiscal cost. If the government removes or reduces a tax, it must find another way to replace the lost revenue or reduce expenditure elsewhere.
This is precisely where the accusation of “tax-and-spend” becomes politically powerful.
Critics can argue that Burnham’s government wants to provide cheaper services and increase public investment while simultaneously limiting the tax burden on households. They therefore question whether the numbers will ultimately add up.
Supporters respond that the government should judge policies according to their long-term economic return rather than simply their immediate cost.
The distinction between spending and investment is consequently central to the debate.
A government building infrastructure that improves productivity may create economic value over decades. A government spending money without increasing productivity may simply create a larger recurring bill.
The difference is not ideological; it is ultimately a question of results.
Burnham has also placed industrial policy at the centre of his programme. His first speech promised a 10-year plan and a programme of reindustrialisation, with public procurement used to support British industry.
That approach represents a significant departure from the more limited role traditionally assigned to government in a market economy.
There are potential benefits. Government procurement can provide stable demand for British companies, while infrastructure investment can improve productivity and regional connectivity.
But intervention also creates risks. Governments can allocate capital inefficiently, support industries that later become uncompetitive or impose additional costs on taxpayers.
The key question is therefore not whether the state should intervene at all. Every modern government intervenes in the economy to some extent. The more important question is whether intervention produces better outcomes than alternative uses of public money.
The same issue applies to public ownership.
Burnham has argued for stronger public control of essential services, reflecting his experience in Greater Manchester, where he brought the region’s bus network under public control. His government is now attempting to extend elements of this philosophy nationally.
Supporters believe public control can prioritise social outcomes rather than shareholder returns.
Critics argue that public ownership does not automatically make services cheaper or more efficient. They point out that taxpayers ultimately bear the financial risks when publicly controlled organisations run deficits.
Again, the evidence will need to come from performance rather than ideology.
The accusation that Burnham is “punishing Britain” is therefore an evaluative political claim, not an established economic fact.
There are legitimate concerns about taxation, government debt and the efficiency of public spending. But there are also legitimate arguments for investment in housing, infrastructure, healthcare and skills.
Britain’s problem is that it needs both fiscal discipline and economic renewal.
Cutting spending too aggressively could weaken public services and investment. Increasing spending without a credible funding strategy could worsen borrowing pressures and potentially underminevolution and stronger state involvement can generate the growth needed to improve Britain’s finances. Critics will be watching closely to see whether the promised growth confidence in the government’s finances.
Burnham’s central challenge is to demonstrate that his economic model can avoid both extremes.
His government is attempting to argue that public investment, devolution and stronger state involvement can generate the growth needed to improve Britain’s finances. Critics will be watching closely to see whether the promised growth materialises quickly enough.
The October Budget will therefore be an important test.
It should provide greater clarity about how the government intends to finance its commitments, what tax changes may be required and how much additional borrowing will be permitted.
Until then, arguments about whether Burnham represents “old-fashioned socialism” remain largely ideological descriptions of a government that is pursuing a more interventionist economic model.
What can be established is that his administration is placing a much greater emphasis on public investment, local government, public services and state involvement in the economy. At the same time, Burnham has committed himself to fiscal rules and has explicitly said that difficult decisions will be necessary.
The real test will therefore not be the political label attached to his government.
It will be whether Britain receives better public services, stronger infrastructure, higher productivity and sustainable economic growth without an unsustainable increase in debt or taxation.
If Burnham can achieve those objectives, his supporters will argue that government intervention has delivered tangible results. If the costs rise faster than the benefits, critics will have stronger grounds for challenging his economic strategy model. The country will soon discover how much that model costs—and, more importantly, whether it.
For now, Britain is entering a period of unusually consequential economic choices.
Burnham has promised a new political and economic model. The country will soon discover how much that model costs—and, more importantly, whether it delivers the results promised.