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’ – Critics Call Him ‘Corbyn in a Black T-Shirt’
Andy Burnham has become the focus of a growing political argument over Britain’s future, with critics warning that his approach to the country’s economic problems could lead to another divisive battle over Brexit. The Greater Manchester mayor has established himself as a prominent voice within Labour, but his calls for a closer relationship with Europe have prompted opponents to question whether he has a convincing plan for tackling Britain’s domestic challenges.
Some critics have gone further, comparing Burnham to former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and dismissively describing him as “Corbyn in a black T-shirt”. The comparison is a political attack rather than an objective assessment, but it highlights the concerns of those who believe Burnham could represent a return to a more left-wing style of Labour politics.
The argument centres on a fundamental question: does Britain need a new approach to economic policy and its relationship with Europe, or are politicians preparing to blame Brexit for problems that require solutions at home?
For Burnham, the challenge is to demonstrate that his proposals offer more than criticism of the existing government and the decisions made since the 2016 referendum. If he wants to play a larger role in national politics, he will need to explain how his ideas would improve living standards, strengthen public services and restore confidence in Britain’s economic future.
Why Burnham Has Become a Target
Burnham has spent years cultivating a reputation as a politician who understands the concerns of communities outside Westminster. As mayor of Greater Manchester, he has championed regional investment, public transport improvements and greater local control over decisions affecting residents.
His supporters argue that this experience distinguishes him from politicians whose careers have been concentrated in central government. They believe he understands how national policies affect ordinary people and why communities need greater power to shape their own futures.
However, his critics question whether his approach can be translated into a credible national programme. They argue that regional leadership does not automatically demonstrate that a politician can manage the entire economy, balance the public finances or resolve disagreements within a governing party.
The comparison with Corbyn reflects those concerns. Corbyn became associated with a more explicitly left-wing Labour programme, including extensive public ownership, higher public spending and a fundamental challenge to established economic assumptions.
Critics who use the comparison against Burnham are suggesting that he could take Labour in a similar direction, prioritising public investment and state intervention while underestimating the financial constraints facing the country.
Yet the comparison should not be treated as proof that the two politicians have identical policies. Their political circumstances, responsibilities and stated positions differ. The label is most useful as an indication of the argument developing around Burnham, rather than as a substitute for examining his actual proposals.
The question for voters is whether his policies offer a practical response to Britain’s problems or whether they risk repeating familiar disputes over taxation, public spending and the role of the state.
Is Brexit Becoming Labour’s Favourite Explanation?
Brexit remains one of the most contentious subjects in British politics. Supporters of leaving the European Union argued that the country would regain control over its laws, borders and trade policy. Opponents warned that leaving would create additional barriers to commerce, reduce Britain’s influence and make economic cooperation with neighbouring countries more difficult.
Nearly a decade after the referendum, disagreement over the consequences continues. Some businesses have experienced additional administrative burdens when trading with the EU, while others have adapted their operations or developed new markets. Britain’s economic performance has also been shaped by inflation, weak productivity growth, investment decisions, international instability and domestic policy.
That complexity makes it difficult to attribute every economic problem to a single cause.
Critics of Burnham fear that he could use Brexit as a convenient explanation for failures that Labour should address directly. If economic growth remains weak, public services struggle or households continue to face financial pressure, they argue, ministers cannot simply point towards the referendum and claim that their options are limited.
There is a legitimate point behind that criticism. Governments must take responsibility for the decisions they make, including choices about taxation, infrastructure, skills, housing and public-sector reform.
However, the opposite argument also deserves consideration. Brexit changed Britain’s trading relationship with its largest nearby market, and those changes have economic consequences that cannot be dismissed simply because the referendum is over. Recognising those consequences does not necessarily mean blaming Brexit for everything.
The real test is whether politicians can distinguish between problems caused or aggravated by Brexit and those that require different solutions.
Burnham would strengthen his position by setting out specific examples, explaining the evidence and identifying policies that could address the problems he describes.
The Corbyn Comparison and Labour’s Left-Wing Debate
The phrase “Corbyn in a black T-shirt” is designed to evoke a particular political image: a Labour figure promising a major change in direction while challenging the economic assumptions of the political establishment.
For some voters, that image may be attractive. They believe Britain has become too dependent on market-led solutions and that successive governments have failed to invest sufficiently in housing, transport, healthcare and regional development. They want a leader prepared to challenge conventional thinking and give public institutions a stronger role in delivering essential services.
For others, the comparison raises concerns about affordability and political credibility. They remember the intense arguments surrounding Corbyn’s leadership and question whether another leftward shift would make Labour more electable or deepen divisions within the party.
Burnham must navigate between these competing expectations. A programme that promises more investment in public services may appeal to people who feel neglected, but voters will also want to know how the money will be raised and whether the proposed reforms will deliver measurable results.
The debate is not simply about whether Labour should move left or right. It is about whether its policies can reconcile public expectations with the economic resources available.
If Burnham advocates greater public spending, he will need to explain which programmes should receive priority, how funding would be secured and what improvements taxpayers could reasonably expect. If he supports greater regional autonomy, he will need to explain how local leaders would be held accountable for the money they receive.
Without those details, critics can portray his politics as an attractive set of promises without a convincing delivery plan.
Can Greater Manchester Provide a National Model?
Burnham’s record as mayor will inevitably feature in any discussion of his wider ambitions. His supporters point to his emphasis on regional decision-making and transport integration as evidence that local government can deliver practical improvements when it has the authority and resources to act.
Greater Manchester has become an important testing ground for policies involving transport, skills, housing and economic development. The broader argument is that decisions made closer to communities can better reflect local circumstances than a uniform national approach.
But transferring that model to the whole country would be a substantial undertaking.
A mayor operates within a defined geographical area and works alongside councils, national departments and other public bodies. A prime minister must manage the entire public finances, respond to international crises, maintain relationships with allies and balance competing demands from every part of the UK.
Policies that work well in one region may not be equally effective elsewhere. Differences in population, infrastructure, employment patterns and economic opportunities can affect the results.
Burnham would therefore need to demonstrate not only that his approach can work locally, but also that it can be adapted to the needs of other regions without creating new inequalities or unsustainable financial commitments.
His experience could provide useful lessons for national policy, but it should be assessed through evidence rather than treated as an automatic qualification for higher office.
The Economic Choices Burnham Cannot Avoid
Any politician seeking to reshape Britain’s economy must confront several difficult questions.
How can productivity be improved after years of disappointing performance? How can businesses be encouraged to invest while workers receive better wages? How can the government finance public services without placing excessive pressure on taxpayers or borrowing? And how can Britain rebuild stronger trading relationships without reopening every argument about Brexit?
These challenges are interconnected. Stronger economic growth can increase tax revenues and make it easier to fund public services. However, growth cannot be produced simply by announcing new spending commitments. Investment must be well targeted, infrastructure projects need effective delivery and public institutions must use resources efficiently.
The same applies to closer relations with Europe. Reducing unnecessary trade barriers could benefit some businesses, but the scale of any gains would depend on the agreements negotiated and the sectors involved. Closer cooperation would not remove the need for domestic reforms.
If Burnham wants to establish himself as a serious national figure, he must demonstrate how these policies fit together. A persuasive programme would identify the problems, explain the proposed interventions and set out how success would be measured.
That approach would also help answer the charge that he is preparing to blame everything on Brexit. Rather than treating the referendum as the central explanation for every difficulty, he could show how changes in Britain’s European relationship fit within a broader economic strategy.
Why the Political Stakes Are So High
Labour faces a difficult balancing act. Some voters want a more ambitious approach to public investment and closer relations with Europe. Others are concerned about higher taxes, government spending and any suggestion that Brexit should be reversed.
These groups do not necessarily fit neatly into traditional political categories. A voter may support stronger public services while opposing higher taxes, or favour closer European trade while rejecting a return to EU membership.
Burnham’s political challenge is to build a coalition broad enough to accommodate these differences. If he focuses too heavily on appealing to Labour’s existing supporters, he may struggle to persuade voters who remain sceptical of the party. If he moderates his message too much, he could disappoint those who want a fundamental change in economic policy.
The Corbyn comparison may become a recurring feature of that argument because it provides critics with a shorthand for their concerns. But labels alone cannot establish whether a political programme is workable.
Voters will ultimately judge Burnham on the substance of his proposals, his record in office and his ability to explain difficult decisions.
A Political Label Is Not a Policy
The accusation that Burnham is “Corbyn in a black T-shirt” may generate headlines, but it does not answer the central questions about his political future. Nor does the suggestion that he is about to blame everything on Brexit establish what he will actually say or propose.
There is a legitimate debate about how much Brexit has contributed to Britain’s economic difficulties, and there is an equally legitimate demand for politicians to take responsibility for domestic policy. A serious discussion must acknowledge both.
Burnham has an opportunity to present a clear alternative based on regional development, public-service reform and a realistic approach to Britain’s relationship with Europe. To succeed, he will need to provide details, explain the costs and recognise the concerns of voters who disagree with him.
His critics, meanwhile, should be prepared to examine his actual policies rather than rely exclusively on comparisons with previous Labour leaders.
Britain’s economic challenges are too significant to be resolved through slogans. The country needs a serious debate about growth, investment, public services and its place in Europe.
Whether Burnham can provide that leadership remains an open question. What is clear is that any attempt to turn him into either a political saviour or a caricature of the Labour left risks obscuring the issues voters most need politicians to address.