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.

Andy Burnham’s ‘About to Blame Everything on Brexit’ – He’s ‘Corbyn in a Black T-Shirt’

Andy Burnham’s renewed criticism of Brexit has sparked a fierce political debate, with opponents accusing the Labour politician of preparing to blame Britain’s economic difficulties on leaving the European Union. Some critics have gone further, comparing him to former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and dismissing his political approach as “Corbyn in a black T-shirt”.

The remark captures the increasingly combative atmosphere surrounding Burnham’s political ambitions and his arguments for resetting Britain’s relationship with Europe. Supporters believe he is raising legitimate questions about trade, investment and the long-term consequences of Brexit. His critics, however, fear that revisiting the issue risks reopening old divisions while allowing politicians to avoid responsibility for domestic policy failures.

At the heart of the dispute is a question that has never entirely disappeared from British politics: how much of the country’s economic performance can reasonably be attributed to Brexit, and how much is the result of decisions made by successive governments?

For Burnham, the answer could shape his wider political message. For his opponents, it presents an opportunity to challenge his economic credibility and portray him as a politician more interested in ideological arguments than practical solutions.

Why Brexit has returned to the political battlefield

Brexit remains one of the most consequential decisions in modern British political history. The 2016 referendum divided voters, reshaped party loyalties and led to years of negotiations over Britain’s future relationship with the European Union.

Although the UK formally left the bloc, arguments over the economic consequences have continued. Businesses have faced new trading procedures, exporters have had to adapt to additional requirements, and successive governments have debated how closely Britain should align its regulations with European standards.

Supporters of closer ties argue that reducing trade friction could improve conditions for British companies and make the country more attractive to investors. They also contend that cooperation with European partners could help address shared challenges in areas such as energy, research and security.

Opponents of closer integration counter that Britain must focus on improving its own competitiveness rather than repeatedly revisiting the referendum. They argue that taxation, planning restrictions, skills shortages, public spending and domestic regulatory decisions are also major factors affecting economic performance.

This disagreement provides the backdrop to the criticism directed at Burnham. His opponents fear that Brexit could become a convenient explanation for problems that require difficult decisions at home. His supporters respond that examining the consequences of leaving the EU is not an excuse but a necessary part of understanding Britain’s economic position.

The accusation: is Burnham turning Brexit into a political scapegoat?

The phrase “about to blame everything on Brexit” comes from criticism by former Conservative Party chairman Sir Jake Berry, who now supports Reform UK. In an article published on October 10, Berry suggested Burnham was preparing to make Britain’s relationship with Europe the central question of a possible general election campaign in May 2027. <Cite refs={[“turn774019search0″,”turn774019search1”]}/>

Berry argued that issues such as weak economic growth, high taxes, illegal immigration, social care and pensions could be pushed into the background while voters were asked to focus on a new European agreement.

His criticism was not simply about whether closer ties with Brussels would be beneficial. It was also an attack on Burnham’s political strategy. Berry suggested that a European deal could be presented as a sweeping solution to problems that would remain difficult even if Britain changed its relationship with the EU.

This is a powerful political argument because voters are often frustrated by promises that appear to offer a single answer to multiple complicated challenges. If Burnham presents the EU reset as a central part of Britain’s economic recovery, he will need to explain precisely what it can deliver, how long the benefits might take to emerge and which problems require separate domestic action.

However, the accusation also risks oversimplifying Burnham’s position. Calling attention to Brexit’s economic consequences does not necessarily mean blaming every national difficulty on it. The real test is whether his proposals distinguish between problems that closer European cooperation could address and those that demand different solutions.

Why the comparison with Jeremy Corbyn matters

Berry’s description of Burnham as “Corbyn in a black T-shirt” is intended to evoke the politics of Jeremy Corbyn, the former Labour leader associated with a more left-wing economic programme, greater public ownership and stronger trade-union influence.

The comparison is a political attack rather than an objective assessment of Burnham’s entire programme. Its purpose is to suggest that a change in image will not necessarily mean a change in ideology.

Berry portrayed Burnham as a politician who would favour higher taxes, expanded public ownership and a greater role for trade unions. He argued that such policies would not automatically produce the growth and productivity that Britain needs.

For Burnham, the challenge is to demonstrate that his approach is more than a return to familiar Labour arguments about public investment and state intervention. He must explain how additional spending would be funded, how public services could become more efficient and how businesses could be encouraged to invest and create jobs.

Supporters of a more interventionist economic strategy would argue that markets alone have not resolved Britain’s problems with regional inequality, infrastructure and public-service provision. They may see a stronger role for government as necessary to stimulate investment and improve living standards.

Critics counter that government intervention can become expensive, that higher taxes may discourage investment and that nationalisation does not guarantee better services. These are substantive disagreements that cannot be settled by a slogan or a comparison with a former Labour leader.

Ultimately, voters will judge Burnham on the details of his policies, not simply on whether he resembles Corbyn in appearance or political style.

Could Brexit become the defining issue of the next election?

The timing of Burnham’s intervention has intensified speculation about the political calculations behind his European strategy.

Berry believes the Prime Minister could use a proposed agreement with the EU to frame a future election around his preferred question. Under that scenario, the Government would argue that closer ties with Europe could help Britain grow, improve trade and strengthen its international position, while opponents would warn against reopening the Brexit debate.

The next UK-EU summit, scheduled for November 20, is expected to provide an important opportunity to discuss practical agreements, including food and drink trade, energy cooperation and youth mobility. <Cite refs={[“turn774019news28″,”turn774019search3”]}/>

These negotiations could produce tangible proposals, but they would not automatically settle the question of EU membership. A sector-specific agreement can be negotiated without Britain rejoining the single market, customs union or the European Union itself.

That distinction will matter in any election campaign. If Burnham presents closer ties as an economic opportunity, opponents will demand evidence that the benefits justify the obligations and potential costs. If he raises the possibility of full membership, the debate will become even more complicated, involving questions of sovereignty, immigration, regulation and the conditions Brussels might impose.

Reform UK is likely to frame any significant shift towards Europe as a reversal of the referendum result. The Conservatives may also seek to position themselves as defenders of the decision to leave, although the parties could differ over the practical arrangements they would support.

For Labour, the challenge is to persuade voters that its European policy is based on economic evidence rather than nostalgia for the pre-Brexit era.

The difficult questions Burnham cannot avoid

Whatever the political rhetoric, any serious programme for economic recovery must answer several practical questions.

First, how would closer relations with the EU increase growth? Reducing paperwork and improving market access could help some businesses, but the scale of the benefits would depend on the agreements secured and the response from companies and investors.

Second, what would happen to immigration policy? Brexit supporters often argued that leaving the EU would allow Britain to exercise greater control over its borders. Burnham has argued that Brexit has not delivered the degree of control its supporters promised, but changes to trade arrangements and immigration rules would require careful explanation.

Third, how would the Government address taxation, public services and living standards? Even if a European reset improved economic conditions over time, it would not immediately resolve pressures on household budgets, social care or the NHS.

Finally, what democratic mandate would support a more fundamental change? Burnham has opened the discussion to a range of options, potentially including rejoining the EU, but any major change would carry significant political consequences. The public would need a clear explanation of the proposed terms and the trade-offs involved. <Cite refs={[“turn774019news34″,”turn774019search2”]}/>

These questions give opponents ample material for scrutiny. They also provide Burnham with an opportunity to demonstrate whether his European strategy is a detailed economic plan or simply a political message.

A battle over Britain’s future

The dispute over Burnham reveals a wider struggle over how Britain should interpret the past decade.

For Brexit supporters, the referendum was a democratic decision that governments should respect. They argue that the country must make use of the powers it regained rather than assume that closer integration with Europe will solve domestic failures.

For those who favour a closer relationship, Brexit has imposed economic costs and restricted opportunities that deserve a fresh assessment. They argue that reconsidering the UK’s relationship with Europe is not an attempt to ignore the referendum but a response to changing circumstances and evidence.

Neither argument removes the need for detailed policy. Brexit cannot reasonably explain every failure of government, just as leaving the EU cannot be assumed to have had no economic consequences.

The comparison with Corbyn and the accusation that Burnham is preparing to blame everything on Brexit are designed to undermine his credibility before his proposals are fully developed. They may resonate with voters who are tired of political arguments about Europe, but they do not, by themselves, establish whether his economic ideas would succeed or fail.

Burnham’s task is to turn his calls for a European reset into clear, measurable commitments while showing how he intends to address Britain’s problems at home. His opponents, meanwhile, must explain what alternative policies would deliver stronger growth, better public services and greater economic security.

The argument will not be resolved by a black T-shirt, a slogan or another round of referendum-era accusations. It will be decided by the substance of the proposals, the terms Britain can negotiate and whether voters believe the promised benefits are worth the costs.

For now, the controversy demonstrates that Brexit remains a powerful political weapon. Burnham’s critics want to prevent it from becoming the explanation for every national problem. His supporters want Britain to confront the consequences of leaving the EU honestly.

The question facing the country is whether the renewed debate will lead to practical improvements—or simply another prolonged battle over the decision that continues to divide British politics.