We have now reached the end of what could best be described as the Back to the Future conference season. Kemi Badenoch wanted to take us back to the 1980s. Andy Burnham wanted to take Labour back to the 1970s, and Britain back into Europe.
Only Nigel Farage seemed interested in taking Britain forward. First, Kemi. Channelling Margaret Thatcher, she wanted us to believe she had rediscovered her true calling as a Tory tax cutter. Quite the Damascene conversion.
This is the same Conservative Party that spent years telling us it was the party of low tax, then left the country carrying a historically high tax burden. Badenoch and many of the people now sitting around her shadow cabinet table served in the governments that helped put it there.
Now we are supposed to believe they have seen the light. Stamp duty and inheritance tax. Abolish them? You’re the ones that made them mind-numbingly high!
I remember George Osborne promising to take most families out of inheritance tax back in 2007. Then came fourteen years of Conservative government. Fourteen years to deliver. Fourteen years of excuses.
Forgive me if I want rather more than a new generation of empty conference promises. I saw pictures on X of the Conservatives’ attempt at a political Bayeux Tapestry. The actual Bayeux Tapestry tells the story of unwelcome arrivals crossing the English Channel, invading Britain and ushering in decades of decline.
The only surprise is that it depicts 1066, rather than the record of the last Conservative government. Then we travelled another decade backwards.
Enter Andy Burnham and the return of the 1970s. Labour members who were at their conference tell me listening to his speech was the closest thing they have had to a religious experience. I get mine in church on Sundays.
They apparently get theirs watching the high priest of Manchesterism, little more in reality than a Jeremy Corbyn tribute act in a black T-shirt, tell them they were right all along. Taxes aren’t high enough. Railways aren’t nationalised enough. The unions aren’t powerful enough.
Apparently, this is how we will grow a modern economy. Work hard and start a business? Pay more.
Go out to work? Pay more. Buy your own home, do the right thing and pay off the mortgage? Pay more.
He has pensioners in his sights too. What has the poor old British pensioner done to offend the Labour Party?
First came the raid on winter fuel payments. Now comes the threat to the triple lock. Call me old-fashioned, but protecting the incomes of people who have worked all their lives strikes me as a pretty low bar.
Then came Europe. Ed Davey has spent years trying to drag us back towards the EU. This year Burnham decided he would not be outdone. He wants to go further. A closer relationship. A renegotiation. Another deal. You can see where this road leads.
Labour has stopped competing with the Lib Dems on Europe. It has adopted their policy. Think about it. A Prime Minister who has not yet won a general election wants, a decade after the referendum, to reopen the greatest democratic decision of our lifetimes.
You have not won your own mandate yet, Andy. Brexit did. How dare politicians treat that decision as a mistake the British people must be persuaded to correct? How dare they blame the failures of politics and politicians on the voters who did exactly what they were asked to do: make a choice?
And this is where the conference season starts to matter. Because my suspicion is that Burnham is laying the ground for an election in May 2027.
I can almost picture him returning, a little like Neville Chamberlain coming back from Munich, waving a piece of paper and assuring us that he has found the answer. Concerned about tens of thousands of people entering the country illegally? Brexit’s fault. Concerned about weak growth, high taxes and a system that too often makes work feel unrewarding? Brexit’s fault.
Concerned about social care, your pension or how much of your wages the government takes? Never mind all that. Look at the new European deal. An election fought on his chosen question, with everything else pushed to the sidelines.
The boats? Wait for the deal. Adult social care? Wait for the plan. The triple lock? Wait for the small print. A blank cheque, with no clear explanation of how he intends to spend it. Corbynism in a black T-shirt. This time with a five-year mandate.
Which brings us to Reform. Reform does not want to take Britain back to the 1980s or the 1970s. It wants to talk about the future. An outward-looking, confident Britain outside the EU. A growing economy. A country that rewards effort and ends the something-for-nothing culture.
Burnham may ask you next year for a blank cheque, with a European deal held aloft and the awkward questions hidden underneath. Do not fall for it. The Conservatives have had their chance. Labour wants another cheque. The Lib Dems want another referendum argument.
Nigel Farage wants to move Britain forward. That is why I will vote Reform. Britain needs reform.
Andy Burnham Is ‘About to Blame Everything on Brexit’ – He’s ‘Corbyn in a Black T-Shirt’
Andy Burnham has become the focus of a fresh political dispute over Brexit, Labour’s economic direction and the future of Britain’s relationship with Europe. Critics have warned that the Greater Manchester mayor could revive arguments associated with the party’s left wing, with some comparing his political approach to that of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. The description of Burnham as “Corbyn in a black T-shirt” captures the hostility surrounding his perceived political direction, but it also raises a wider question about whether Labour is preparing to revisit the divisions that shaped British politics for much of the past decade.
Brexit remains one of the most contested issues in the United Kingdom. Supporters of leaving the European Union argue that Britain must make the most of its independence, while advocates of closer European integration believe that rebuilding economic and political ties could help address some of the difficulties that have emerged since departure.
Burnham’s position within this debate matters because he has built a reputation as a prominent Labour figure with ambitions extending beyond local government. Any suggestion that he intends to place Brexit at the centre of Britain’s economic problems could trigger a fierce response from politicians who believe the referendum result must be respected.
However, the debate should not be reduced to personal labels. The important questions concern what Burnham actually proposes, how he believes Britain’s economy should develop and whether closer relations with Europe would deliver the benefits he and his supporters might seek.
Why Brexit Remains a Political Flashpoint
Britain’s departure from the European Union followed the 2016 referendum, in which approximately 52 per cent of voters supported Leave and 48 per cent supported Remain. The result led to years of difficult negotiations, parliamentary disputes and political instability before the UK formally left the bloc.
For Brexit supporters, the referendum represented a decision to restore greater national control over laws, immigration and trade policy. They argued that Britain should be able to establish its own priorities without being bound by EU institutions.
For Remain supporters, the decision created new barriers to trade and weakened some of the economic advantages associated with membership of a large integrated market. Many argued that the UK would lose influence over European decisions while still needing to maintain close economic relationships with its neighbours.
Both perspectives continue to shape political debate.
Businesses trading across the UK-EU border have faced additional administrative requirements since Brexit, while the effects on individual industries have varied considerably. The economic consequences have also interacted with other developments, including the pandemic, energy-price shocks, changes in global trade and domestic policy decisions.
This complexity makes claims that Brexit explains every economic difficulty unconvincing. Equally, dismissing all concerns about the consequences of departure overlooks genuine changes in the conditions under which many businesses operate.
The challenge for politicians is to identify specific problems and explain which policies could realistically address them.
The Comparison With Jeremy Corbyn
The comparison between Burnham and Jeremy Corbyn is politically significant because Corbyn’s leadership represented a distinct period in Labour’s history.
Corbyn led Labour from 2015 to 2020, advocating a more interventionist economic programme that included greater public ownership, higher investment in public services and a stronger role for the state in the economy.
His supporters argued that the party needed to challenge economic inequality and provide a credible alternative to Conservative austerity. His opponents questioned the affordability of some proposals and criticised his leadership on a range of political and foreign-policy issues.
The description of Burnham as “Corbyn in a black T-shirt” appears designed to associate him with that political tradition while suggesting a different public image.
Yet political comparisons can obscure important differences. Sharing some positions on public investment, regional inequality or the role of government does not automatically mean that two politicians have identical economic programmes or political priorities.
Burnham has developed his own profile through his work in Greater Manchester, particularly his advocacy of devolution, public transport and regional decision-making.
The relevant question is whether his proposals demonstrate a consistent economic philosophy and whether that philosophy differs materially from the direction pursued by Labour under Keir Starmer.
Voters need specific policies and evidence rather than descriptions intended primarily to provoke a reaction.
Is Burnham Preparing to Blame Brexit for Britain’s Problems?
The allegation that Burnham is preparing to blame everything on Brexit reflects a broader argument about how politicians interpret Britain’s economic performance since leaving the EU.
Some supporters of closer European integration argue that Brexit has reduced trade efficiency, discouraged certain investments and complicated supply chains. They believe that improving relations with the EU could help British businesses and create opportunities for economic growth.
Brexit supporters counter that many of the country’s difficulties have domestic causes, including weak productivity growth, insufficient investment, housing shortages and long-standing problems with infrastructure.
The two explanations are not necessarily mutually exclusive. An economy can experience problems resulting from several factors simultaneously, and the importance of each factor can differ between sectors.
For example, a manufacturer exporting goods to Europe may face additional paperwork associated with post-Brexit trading arrangements. A company struggling to recruit skilled workers may be affected by training shortages, wages and changes to immigration rules. A business experiencing weak demand may face challenges that have little direct connection to the UK’s membership status.
A serious economic assessment must distinguish between these circumstances.
If Burnham argues that Brexit has contributed to a particular problem, he should identify the mechanism through which that effect occurs and explain what a proposed change would achieve.
That approach would allow the public to evaluate his argument without assuming that either Brexit or domestic government policy is responsible for every economic difficulty.
The Economic Case for Rebuilding Relations With Europe
The European Union remains one of Britain’s most important trading partners. Consequently, the practical relationship between the UK and the EU has significant implications for businesses, workers and consumers.
Since Brexit, companies trading in goods have had to comply with new arrangements, although the precise requirements depend on the product, the destination and the applicable agreement. These changes can create additional costs, particularly for smaller businesses with limited administrative resources.
Supporters of closer cooperation argue that reducing unnecessary barriers could improve trade and encourage investment. They also believe that agreements covering research, energy, security and professional qualifications could deliver benefits without requiring Britain to seek full EU membership.
However, closer relations involve negotiations and potential compromises. Greater access to European markets may require compliance with particular rules, financial contributions or arrangements for resolving disputes.
Full EU membership would raise even more substantial questions about immigration, budget contributions, regulatory obligations and the UK’s role within European institutions.
It would therefore be misleading to suggest that Britain could simply reverse Brexit and restore its previous arrangements without negotiations.
Any politician advocating a closer relationship with Europe must explain which arrangements they want to change, what concessions might be necessary and how the expected benefits would be measured.
Labour’s Internal Political Dilemma
The Brexit debate presents a continuing challenge for Labour because its supporters hold different views about European integration.
Some Labour voters supported Remain and would welcome closer economic ties with the EU. Others supported Leave and remain concerned that political leaders could disregard the referendum result.
Still others may regard Brexit as a secondary issue compared with healthcare, housing, taxation, immigration and employment.
This diversity means that Labour cannot assume that a single message about Europe will satisfy its entire electoral coalition.
Keir Starmer’s government has generally emphasised improving the UK’s relationship with the EU while ruling out a return to the single market, the customs union or freedom of movement in its stated policy approach.
Burnham’s political prominence could bring renewed attention to the question of whether that approach is sufficiently ambitious, although any assessment of his intentions must be based on his actual statements and proposals.
If he advocates deeper integration, he would need to explain how that position relates to Labour’s existing commitments. If he supports closer cooperation without seeking membership, he would need to identify the practical agreements he believes Britain should pursue.
The distinction matters because improving relations with the EU does not necessarily mean advocating rejoining the bloc.
What This Means for Nigel Farage and Reform UK
Nigel Farage and Reform UK have built much of their political identity around Brexit, immigration and national sovereignty. A renewed dispute over Britain’s relationship with Europe could provide the party with an opportunity to reinforce those themes.
Reform UK has argued that Britain should defend the independence secured through departure and resist attempts to restore EU influence over domestic policy.
From that perspective, any proposal to move towards closer integration can be presented as evidence that established political parties remain dissatisfied with the referendum result.
However, the political effects of such arguments depend on the proposals actually being discussed and the concerns voters consider most important.
A debate about trade arrangements may resonate differently from a proposal for full EU membership. Similarly, voters who want stronger economic cooperation with Europe may not necessarily support reversing Brexit.
Reform UK would therefore need to address the substance of the debate rather than relying entirely on warnings about a possible return to the EU.
Labour, meanwhile, would need to demonstrate that its approach protects national interests while maintaining productive relationships with neighbouring countries.
The Importance of Looking Beyond Political Labels
The description of Burnham as “Corbyn in a black T-shirt” illustrates how political debate can become dominated by personal comparisons rather than policy analysis.
Labels can communicate a political criticism quickly, but they do not establish whether a particular proposal is affordable, effective or appropriate.
The same applies to claims that Brexit is responsible for all Britain’s problems. Such statements should be examined against evidence about trade, investment, productivity, wages and public finances.
Britain’s economic performance depends on a broad range of domestic and international factors. Brexit has changed the country’s trading relationship with the EU, but its effects vary across sectors and interact with wider economic conditions.
Similarly, proposals for public investment or stronger regional government should be assessed according to their expected costs, benefits and implementation requirements rather than their resemblance to policies associated with previous Labour leaders.
A constructive debate would ask what Burnham wants to change, how he would finance those changes and what evidence supports his approach.
That would give voters a clearer basis for judging his ideas than a comparison based on clothing or political branding.
Conclusion: Brexit Still Shapes Britain’s Political Future
The controversy surrounding Andy Burnham demonstrates that Brexit continues to influence Britain’s political arguments long after the formal departure from the European Union.
Critics who compare him to Jeremy Corbyn are raising questions about Labour’s economic direction, the role of the state and the possibility of renewed disputes over European integration. Supporters of closer EU relations, meanwhile, argue that Britain must confront the practical consequences of its departure and consider how to improve its economic relationships.
Neither a political label nor a broad accusation can settle those questions.
If Burnham believes that Brexit has contributed to specific economic problems, he should identify the evidence and explain which changes he would pursue. If his critics believe that his approach would undermine national sovereignty or create unnecessary uncertainty, they should explain the likely consequences of his proposals.
The British public deserves a debate based on clear objectives, credible financial calculations and an honest assessment of the alternatives.
Ultimately, the question is not whether Burnham resembles Corbyn in appearance or political style. It is whether his policies would address Britain’s economic challenges and whether the proposed solutions could be delivered in practice.
As Labour considers its future direction, the relationship between economic growth, national sovereignty and European cooperation will remain a central political question. How Burnham chooses to address that balance could shape the debate, but the substance of his proposals will matter far more than the slogans used to describe him.