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’s ‘About to Blame Everything on Brexit’ – He’s ‘Corbyn in a Black T-Shirt’
Andy Burnham has found himself at the centre of an increasingly heated political debate, with critics questioning whether his approach to Britain’s problems represents a genuine alternative to the current political establishment or simply a return to familiar arguments about Brexit, austerity and the country’s relationship with Europe.
The Greater Manchester mayor has long been regarded as one of Labour’s most recognisable figures outside Westminster. His supporters see him as an experienced politician who understands the pressures facing working families, public services and communities across northern England. His critics, however, argue that his political instincts could take Britain back towards the divisions that have shaped Labour for years.
The latest criticism has produced a particularly sharp comparison, with one of his opponents describing him as “Corbyn in a black T-shirt”. The remark is designed to suggest that Burnham represents a continuation of the left-wing politics associated with former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, but with a different public image.
It is a provocative label, and one that raises a bigger question: what would a Burnham-led political direction mean for Britain, and would it offer practical answers to the country’s problems?
Why Brexit Remains a Political Flashpoint
Brexit continues to cast a long shadow over British politics. Years after the referendum, disagreements remain over its economic consequences, the UK’s trading relationship with Europe, immigration, regulatory arrangements and the future of cooperation between Britain and its European neighbours.
For some politicians, closer relations with the European Union are an important part of Britain’s economic future. They argue that reducing unnecessary barriers to trade could help businesses, improve cooperation and create opportunities for growth. Others warn that reopening the Brexit debate could revive old divisions and distract politicians from the immediate concerns of voters.
Burnham’s political position is therefore likely to attract scrutiny whenever he discusses Britain’s relationship with Europe.
Critics who accuse him of being ready to blame everything on Brexit are making a broader argument about political accountability. They fear that politicians may use the consequences of leaving the EU as a convenient explanation for problems that also have domestic causes, including decisions about taxation, public spending, infrastructure and public services.
That criticism deserves consideration, although it should not be treated as proof that every concern about Brexit is misplaced.
Britain’s departure from the EU has affected its economic and political relationship with its largest nearby trading bloc. However, the extent of its impact varies across sectors and issues, and many challenges facing the country have multiple causes. Housing shortages, NHS waiting lists, weak productivity and pressure on local government cannot responsibly be reduced to a single explanation.
A serious political debate should distinguish between the consequences of Brexit, the decisions made by successive British governments and the wider economic forces affecting the country.
If Burnham wants to argue for closer European cooperation, he will need to explain precisely what changes he supports, what benefits they could deliver and what limitations would remain.
The Corbyn Comparison: Political Attack or Serious Warning?
Comparisons with Jeremy Corbyn are politically powerful because his leadership remains a defining period in modern Labour history.
Corbyn attracted substantial support among people who wanted a more interventionist state, greater public investment and a break with economic policies they believed had favoured the wealthy. His leadership also generated fierce opposition, including over his political positions, his approach to national security and controversies surrounding antisemitism within Labour.
The party’s heavy defeat in the 2019 general election became a major turning point, contributing to his departure as leader and the subsequent effort to reshape Labour’s public image.
Calling Burnham “Corbyn in a black T-shirt” attempts to connect him with that political legacy. The phrase implies that beneath a different style lies a familiar set of left-wing instincts.
But a slogan is not a complete political analysis.
Burnham has his own political record, governing responsibilities and relationships within the Labour movement. His views and proposals should be judged on their merits rather than automatically treated as identical to Corbyn’s.
The comparison also raises a question about how Labour intends to balance public demand for better-funded services with concerns about taxation, economic growth and government efficiency.
Voters may support investment in the NHS, transport and social care without necessarily endorsing every policy associated with the Labour left. Equally, support for a more active state does not automatically mean a politician would reproduce Corbyn’s leadership or electoral strategy.
The important test is whether Burnham can demonstrate that his proposals are financially credible, politically achievable and capable of improving people’s lives.
Andy Burnham’s Appeal Beyond Westminster
Burnham’s position as mayor of Greater Manchester gives him a political platform distinct from that of a conventional Westminster politician.
As mayor, he has been associated with arguments for regional investment, transport improvements, devolution and a stronger role for local leaders in shaping economic development. His supporters believe this experience gives him a practical understanding of the problems facing communities that feel overlooked by national government.
The political attraction is clear. Many voters outside London believe that important decisions are too centralised and that national economic growth has not benefited every part of the country equally.
Regional inequality remains a major issue. Access to reliable transport, affordable housing, well-paid employment and quality public services can differ considerably depending on where people live. Local leaders are often closer to these challenges than ministers working in Whitehall.
Burnham’s challenge is to demonstrate that the policies he advocates at a regional level could work on a national scale.
Running a major metropolitan area is not the same as running the United Kingdom. A prime minister must manage the entire public finances, oversee national security, respond to international crises and make decisions affecting every part of the country.
A credible national programme would therefore need to explain not only what additional investment is required, but also how it would be funded and what outcomes taxpayers could expect.
Without that detail, calls for greater spending risk sounding more like political aspirations than a workable governing strategy.
The Cost-of-Living Crisis and Public Services
The economic pressures facing British households provide a powerful backdrop to the argument over Burnham’s political future.
Families continue to worry about housing costs, food prices, energy bills and the difficulty of saving for the future. Workers want higher living standards, while businesses need a stable economic environment in which to invest and create jobs.
At the same time, public services face significant demands. The NHS must manage waiting lists and workforce pressures, local councils have to balance budgets against growing needs, and social care remains a difficult long-term challenge.
Burnham and politicians with similar priorities argue that government must do more to address these problems. They often emphasise investment, stronger public services and greater support for communities experiencing economic disadvantage.
Critics respond that spending commitments alone will not solve Britain’s problems. They argue that reforms must also address productivity, administrative inefficiency, workforce shortages and the ability of the economy to generate the revenue needed to sustain public services.
Both sides face a test of credibility.
It is not enough to promise better services without explaining how improvements will be delivered. Nor is it enough to call for restraint without showing how essential services can meet growing demand.
If Burnham wants to establish himself as a serious national figure, he will need to explain how his approach would reconcile these competing pressures.
Would Closer Ties With Europe Help Britain?
Any renewed debate about Brexit is likely to bring economic arguments to the forefront.
Supporters of closer relations with the EU believe that reducing trade friction and improving cooperation could benefit British businesses. They may also point to opportunities in research, education, energy, security and other areas where cooperation can serve shared interests.
Those who oppose reopening the question argue that businesses need stability and that politicians should focus on domestic reform rather than reigniting arguments that divided the electorate.
There is also a distinction between improving practical cooperation with the EU and seeking to reverse Brexit itself. Politicians should be precise about which route they advocate, because the economic, legal and political implications differ considerably.
Burnham would face difficult questions if he sought a more prominent role in this debate. Would he favour targeted agreements designed to make trade easier? Would he support closer alignment with selected European rules? Or would he advocate a more fundamental change in Britain’s relationship with the EU?
These questions cannot be answered by simply accusing him of blaming Brexit for every national problem.
Equally, any proposal for closer ties should be assessed realistically. Potential benefits must be weighed against costs, negotiating constraints and the political difficulties of securing public support.
The electorate is unlikely to be persuaded by broad claims that Europe would solve Britain’s economic difficulties. Voters would need to understand what a particular policy would change in practical terms.
Could Burnham Become a National Political Force?
Burnham’s supporters may see him as a politician capable of connecting Labour’s traditional working-class electorate with voters who feel disconnected from Westminster. His profile in Greater Manchester, his emphasis on regional concerns and his ability to attract media attention could help him build a broader political presence.
However, a national leadership role would bring new challenges.
He would need to demonstrate that his political message could appeal beyond Greater Manchester and that he could work effectively within Labour’s parliamentary structures. His relationship with the party leadership would also be important, particularly if his policy positions or public interventions created tensions with the government.
A politician can enjoy considerable popularity in a particular region without necessarily possessing a winning formula for a general election. National politics involves a much wider range of communities, interests and expectations.
Burnham would also need to withstand scrutiny of his record, his proposals and his handling of difficult decisions. Every major promise would invite questions about funding, implementation and consequences for people who disagree with his priorities.
The “Corbyn in a black T-shirt” attack may attract attention, but it does not settle whether Burnham could become an effective national leader. That judgment would require a much closer examination of his policies and political performance.
Labour Cannot Afford to Ignore the Debate
The controversy surrounding Burnham reflects a broader challenge for Labour: how to respond to public frustration without appearing to return to political approaches that voters have already rejected.
Some voters want stronger public services and more investment in struggling communities. Others prioritise lower taxes, economic stability and tighter control of public spending. Many want a combination of these goals and are sceptical of politicians who present difficult choices as if they were straightforward.
Labour must find a way to address these expectations while maintaining public confidence in its economic judgement.
For Burnham, that means demonstrating that his arguments go beyond criticism of the government’s opponents or appeals to nostalgia for an earlier political era. He needs to show what he would do differently and why his approach would produce better results.
For his critics, the challenge is equally important. Comparing him with Corbyn may be an effective way to mobilise political opposition, but it is not a substitute for examining the substance of his proposals.
British voters deserve a debate based on evidence, realistic alternatives and clear explanations of the choices involved.
The Verdict: More Than a Slogan
Andy Burnham’s political future will depend on whether he can turn his regional profile and policy priorities into a convincing national offer.
The accusations that he is preparing to blame everything on Brexit and that he resembles Jeremy Corbyn in a different outfit capture the suspicion with which some opponents view his politics. But they remain political criticisms, not definitive conclusions about what he would do in government.
Brexit has had real consequences, but it is not the sole explanation for Britain’s economic difficulties. Public investment can help address major problems, but it must be accompanied by credible funding and effective delivery. And a politician’s similarities to a former leader should be established through policies and actions, not merely through a memorable phrase.
Ultimately, Burnham will be judged by the answers he offers to the country’s most pressing questions: how to improve living standards, restore confidence in public services, encourage economic growth and ensure that prosperity reaches communities across Britain.
If he can provide convincing answers, he may strengthen his position in the national debate. If he relies primarily on broad criticisms and familiar political divisions, scepticism will remain.
The real test is not whether Burnham can be labelled the next Corbyn. It is whether he can demonstrate that his ideas offer Britain a practical way forward — and persuade voters that those ideas deserve their support.