The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) said last week that government debt is on an “unsustainable and ever rising path”. Britain needs to cut spending by £120billion a year, and yet PM-in-waiting Andy Burnham is apparently happy to waste £35billion giving away our Chagos Islands base, according to senior foreign office sources. Talk about Starmer 2.0. The alarming OBR forecast came as Burnham and his team are drawing up their first budget for the autumn. The tax and spending watchdog made it clear the Labour government is on a dangerous path, committing itself to excessive public expenditure while our national debt pile is close to £3trillion – some 95% of our total gross domestic product.
This could be pushed to 300% of GDP within 50 years if government expenditure continues on its current trajectory with benefits, pensions and the NHS budget spiralling even more out of control. The public sector gravy train cannot go rattling on into oblivion. But to avoid the country going bust, any PM needs to impose spending cuts or tax rises of £120billion.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more Invalid email
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 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time. Read our Privacy Policy
Just as this grim news was presented to the government, senior foreign office officials indicated that Burnham was happy to carry on with Starmer’s policy of giving away our Chagos Islands military base and paying through the nose for the privilege of doing so.
Not only did this irritate the hell out of Donald Trump, but it symbolised a weird anti-imperial project aimed at appeasing the most anti-British sentiments of Attorney General Lord Hermer and other left-wing lawyers.
As the project seemed to thankfully falter under the pressure of American disapproval, it would have been the simplest thing to shelve it under Burnham’s new regime, expressing a common sense wish to get beyond such costly, vainglorious gestures. It would certainly save billions of taxpayers’ pounds that could be redirected to more urgent concerns and win some early brownie points in the White House.
But, worryingly, the latest indications are that Burnham wants to press ahead with the whole unnecessary giveaway of British sovereign territory to Mauritius, an ally of China and Iran. If this proves to be so, it marks out Burnham as someone keen to shore up his support within Labour ranks at any cost. Talk about putting party before country.
Burnham has already strangely apologised for Starmer’s response to the Hamas-Israel war, saying he would have introduced tougher sanctions more quickly on the Jewish nation while paying lip service to October 7. Again, the purpose of this is to endear him to the hard-Left of the party, whatever the consequences for our relationship with Israel, our top security ally in the region.
It shows that despite having a huge majority in parliament, Burnham, like Starmer, fears his backbenchers. Yet again, we can expect the parliamentary tail to be wagging the Prime Ministerial dog. Not only does this infuriate key international players such as America and Israel, but it indicates a woeful misunderstanding of the economic peril we face.
We can ill afford to give away hard-earned taxpayers’ money to an unfriendly foreign regime when so many more demands face us closer to home.
And expecting taxpayers to dig us out of this hole is not advisable, says the OBR. “Using tax over the long term as your only lever to address the fiscal sustainability pressures that we identify is likely to create ever-increasing economic distortions and costs,” said OBR official Tom Josephs.
As Burnham’s favourite solution is taxing the rich, he was warned this could “negatively impact investment and because capital is generally much more internationally mobile than labour, the yield generated from higher capital taxes is more uncertain”.
In simple terms, tax the rich and they will leave. Just last year, some 16,500 millionaires departed our shores, taking an estimated £70billion that could have been invested in our nation and its businesses. This will only get worse if Burnham insists on sucking up to socialists within his party.
Burnham is too weak, too keen to ingratiate himself to his MPs, to make any of the hard choices needed to reverse our national decline. Even when presented with an easy win by ditching the calamitous Chagos deal, he fluffs it. If this is a sign of the direction of travel for Burnham as our PM, it’ll make the Starmer years seem like the calm before the storm.
Andy Burnham Proves He’s Nothing More Than Starmer 2.0 with £35 Billion Bill
Andy Burnham was supposed to represent a break with the past.
After the political collapse of Keir Starmer’s government, Labour supporters were promised a new beginning: a different style of leadership, a stronger connection with ordinary voters and a government prepared to abandon the cautious politics that had frustrated so many people.
But critics are now asking a very different question.
Has Andy Burnham really changed Labour — or is he simply Keir Starmer 2.0, with an even bigger bill attached?
That accusation has become increasingly powerful as the new prime minister unveils ambitious plans involving public services, regional government, transport, energy and public ownership. The scale of the proposals has prompted warnings that the government could ultimately face a financial burden running into tens of billions of pounds.
For opponents, the headline figure of £35 billion has become a symbol of everything they fear about Burnham’s economic approach.
They argue that the new prime minister promised voters a fresh start but is instead offering an expanded state, more spending commitments and another political programme whose costs could eventually land on taxpayers.
Burnham insists that his approach is fundamentally different from Starmer’s.
His supporters argue that he is prepared to confront Britain’s economic problems rather than simply manage them. They say the country needs investment, stronger public services and a major redistribution of economic power away from London.
But critics believe that changing the political language does not necessarily mean changing the underlying model.
In their view, Burnham is still asking the taxpayer to fund an increasingly ambitious government.
That is why the £35 billion figure has become so politically explosive.
The argument is not simply about whether the figure itself represents a single confirmed government bill. It is about the cumulative financial implications of Burnham’s programme.
His government has already promised or discussed major measures involving energy bills, bus fares, social care, homelessness, public ownership and regional development.
Each individual policy may appear manageable.
Together, however, they create a much larger question.
How much will Burnham’s new Britain actually cost?
That question could become the defining issue of his premiership.
Burnham entered Downing Street promising a new economic philosophy. He has argued that Britain has spent too long relying on privatisation and excessive centralisation and that government must take a more active role in shaping the economy.
He has pointed to essential services such as energy, water and transport as areas where the existing model has failed ordinary people.
His answer is greater public control.
The argument is attractive on the surface.
If households are struggling with expensive bills and unreliable services, why should the government not intervene?
If private companies are making large profits while consumers feel increasingly squeezed, why should taxpayers not demand a different system?
But there is a second question that Burnham’s critics believe is being ignored.
Who pays?
Bringing services under public control does not make their underlying costs disappear.
The government still has to finance infrastructure, staff, maintenance, investment and debt.
If the state takes responsibility for an industry, it also takes responsibility for the risks associated with that industry.
That is why opponents argue that Burnham’s promises could eventually create a financial liability of enormous proportions.
The £35 billion figure therefore serves as a warning rather than simply a calculation.
It represents the potential scale of the challenge facing a government that wants to transform several parts of the economy at once.
And this is where the comparison with Starmer becomes uncomfortable.
Starmer came to power promising change but quickly became associated with cautious economic management, fiscal restraint and difficult tax decisions.
His government faced criticism for raising taxes while struggling to provide convincing improvements in public services.
Burnham now promises something different.
But if the result is still higher taxes, greater government spending and continued pressure on household finances, voters may reasonably ask what has actually changed.
The personalities are different.
The political language is different.
But the financial experience could look surprisingly familiar.
This is precisely what Reform UK and the Conservatives will argue.
They will say that Burnham has changed the packaging without solving the fundamental problem.
Britain still has high public debt.
The economy still needs stronger growth.
Public services still face huge pressures.
And taxpayers still face the possibility of paying more to finance government commitments.
For Burnham, however, the answer is that Britain cannot simply cut its way to prosperity.
He believes investment can create growth.
If better transport infrastructure helps people reach employment, if cheaper energy allows businesses to expand, if stronger public services reduce social problems and if regional investment increases productivity, then government spending could eventually pay for itself through a larger economy and a stronger tax base.
That is a legitimate economic argument.
But it carries risk.
Investment takes time.
Bills arrive immediately.
A government can borrow today in the expectation that tomorrow’s economy will be stronger, but if growth disappoints, taxpayers are left carrying the debt.
This is why financial credibility will be critical for Burnham.
The government cannot simply announce ambitious projects and assume that economic growth will automatically follow.
It must demonstrate that the investments are productive.
It must explain how projects will be financed.
And it must be prepared to abandon policies that do not deliver value.
This is particularly important because Burnham has already created enormous expectations.
His supporters want improvements in housing.
They want cheaper transport.
They want stronger public services.
They want social care reform.
They want action on homelessness.
They want regional economies outside London to become more prosperous.
And they want the government to take greater control over essential services.
Each objective has political appeal.
The problem is that every objective requires resources.
This is where the £35 billion argument becomes so effective politically.
It allows opponents to transform a collection of complicated policies into one simple message:
Burnham’s promises are going to cost you.
That message will be particularly attractive to Reform UK leader Nigel Farage.
Farage has built his political career around challenging what he describes as an overgrown and expensive political establishment. His economic message emphasises lower taxation, less regulation and greater freedom for businesses and individuals.
Burnham represents almost the opposite philosophy.
He believes government should intervene more.
Farage believes it should intervene less.
The two men are therefore competing for voters who are angry about the same problems but have radically different ideas about the solution.
That battle will be particularly important among working-class voters.
Burnham wants to win back voters who moved away from Labour because they felt the party no longer understood their economic concerns.
His message is that Labour can deliver stronger communities through public investment and government action.
Farage’s response will be that those same voters are already paying too much in tax and receiving too little in return.
The £35 billion argument gives Reform an opportunity to reinforce that message.
If Burnham’s government eventually has to raise taxes to finance its programme, Farage will claim that he predicted it.
If borrowing rises significantly, he will argue that Labour is leaving future generations with the bill.
If public ownership projects require more money than expected, he will use them as examples of government waste.
But there is an important counterargument.
Doing nothing also has a cost.
Britain’s infrastructure requires investment.
The NHS and social care system face enormous demographic pressures.
Housing shortages are contributing to high living costs.
Poor transport connections limit economic opportunities in many regions.
And an ageing population will require increasing levels of support.
A government that refuses to invest because investment is expensive could simply allow these problems to become even more costly.
Burnham’s supporters therefore argue that the real question is not whether government spends money.
It is whether the money is spent intelligently.
That distinction could ultimately determine whether Burnham succeeds.
If his government can demonstrate that its investments increase productivity, reduce long-term costs and improve living standards, the £35 billion criticism may lose much of its force.
But if voters see large sums being spent without obvious improvements, the comparison with Starmer will become increasingly damaging.
There is another political problem.
Burnham’s government cannot rely on goodwill forever.
His early popularity has given him some breathing room, but governments inevitably face tougher conditions once the excitement of a leadership change disappears.
The public will eventually judge the government by practical results.
A cheaper bus fare is useful if buses actually run reliably.
A new public service is valuable if it works efficiently.
Public ownership is worthwhile if it delivers better services at a reasonable cost.
Regional devolution matters if it produces better jobs and stronger local economies.
Promises alone will not be enough.
That is why Burnham’s greatest challenge is not convincing people that he is different from Starmer.
It is proving that he can achieve things Starmer could not.
If Burnham simply increases spending while taxes remain high and economic growth remains weak, voters may conclude that the political transformation they were promised was largely cosmetic.
Starmer had his cautious approach.
Burnham has his interventionist approach.
But if both ultimately leave households struggling with high taxes and limited improvements, the difference may appear much smaller than Labour’s new leadership would like.
The £35 billion controversy therefore represents something bigger than one financial estimate.
It is a test of Burnham’s entire political philosophy.
Can a larger role for government produce faster growth?
Can public ownership deliver better value?
Can regional investment reduce Britain’s deep economic inequalities?
Can social programmes be expanded without destabilising public finances?
And can Burnham achieve all of this without asking ordinary taxpayers to shoulder an unbearable burden?
Those are the questions that will define his premiership.
For now, the opposition has seized on the £35 billion figure because it provides a simple and emotionally powerful warning.
Burnham promised change.
But change has a price.
And if that price eventually reaches tens of billions of pounds, voters will want to know whether they are buying genuine economic transformation or simply another version of the same politics they rejected under Starmer.
That is the real danger for the new prime minister.
Andy Burnham has presented himself as the politician who can break with the past.
He has promised a more confident Labour Party, a stronger state and a new economic settlement.
But political history will not judge him by the ambition of his speeches.
It will judge him by the results.
If he can turn investment into growth, reform public services and improve living standards, he will have proved that his model works.
If he cannot, his opponents will have a devastating answer.
They will say that Burnham was never the great political alternative Britain was promised.
He was simply Starmer 2.0.