Andy Burnham’s only been back 5 minutes – he’s already made his first big mistake. hyn
Andy Burnham has just started as Prime Minister (Image: Getty)
What’s more important than defending our country? We expect a lot from our government. That includes good schools, a good health service and more. And sometimes we want politicians to get out of the way, so that the hard-working people who keep the economy ticking over can get on with their jobs.
But it all counts for nothing if we can’t defend ourselves from our enemies. And that’s the situation Andy Burnham is placing us in. He has no plan for increasing defence spending to 3% of GDP – the bare minimum experts say is needed. And there’s certainly no plan to get it up to the NATO target of 3.5%. Instead, Chancellor John Healey is set to announce a more modest increase in the Budget in October.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
Andy Burnham’s Only Been Back Five Minutes – He’s Already Made His First Big Mistake
Andy Burnham has only recently returned to the centre of British national politics, but his government is already facing intense scrutiny over its first major decisions. After years of building his political identity around regional government, public services and a different approach to Westminster politics, Burnham now has to translate those ideas into national policy.
The speed with which the criticism has emerged is significant. Before his government has had much time to implement its programme, opponents are already questioning whether some of its choices could create unnecessary risks.
The first months of any new administration are inevitably difficult. A government inherits existing economic pressures, international commitments and public-service problems. It must also make decisions before every piece of information is available.
For Burnham, however, the expectations are particularly high because he entered national office promising substantial change.
A Government That Wants to Move Quickly
Burnham has presented his administration as a government determined to change the way Britain is run.
One of its central objectives is to transfer more power away from Westminster and towards regions and local communities. The House of Lords Library has identified devolution and the restructuring of central-local government relations as major elements of the government’s legislative agenda.
That approach reflects Burnham’s experience as mayor of Greater Manchester.
During his time in regional government, he became closely associated with transport reform, devolution and regional economic development. Now those ideas are being considered at national level.
The challenge is that a policy that works within one metropolitan region cannot automatically be applied across the whole country.
Britain contains large cities, smaller towns, rural communities and different economic regions. Their priorities can vary considerably.
The government’s first major task is therefore to demonstrate that its reforms can work beyond the environment in which Burnham originally developed them.
The Controversy Over Defence
One of the earliest areas of disagreement concerns defence spending.
Britain remains committed to NATO and continues to face a changing European security environment. The government’s defence policy therefore has implications not only for public finances but also for Britain’s international commitments.
Burnham’s government has faced pressure over the timetable for increasing defence spending to 3% of GDP.
Critics have argued that any delay or change in the timetable could weaken confidence in the government’s defence strategy. Supporters of a more cautious approach may argue that defence spending must be balanced against other demands on the Treasury.
This is where Burnham’s broader programme encounters a practical problem.
He wants to expand public services, increase regional investment, improve infrastructure and support economic development. Defence spending must compete with all of those priorities for limited resources.
The issue is therefore not simply whether Britain should spend more on defence. It is also about when additional spending should occur and how it should be financed.
The October Budget
The government’s first major Budget represents another crucial test.
Burnham has refused to rule out tax changes, while Chancellor John Healey has emphasised the importance of fiscal discipline and economic growth.
During his first Prime Minister’s Questions, Burnham argued that the Budget should not be written publicly in advance and that excessive speculation could have negative consequences.
Politically, however, refusing to provide details leaves opponents with an opportunity to question the government’s plans.
Businesses and households also want clarity about taxation, spending and the economic environment.
The government’s challenge is to reassure markets and voters without revealing decisions before they have been finalised.
Devolution Could Become Burnham’s Biggest Gamble
Perhaps the most important part of Burnham’s programme is his plan to give regions greater control.
The government has proposed extending devolution beyond areas that already have elected mayors.
Under the proposals, local authorities could gain greater responsibility for transport, housing, skills and economic development.
The argument is that local leaders understand their communities better than central government departments in London.
However, decentralisation creates another problem: accountability.
If a regional authority controls a larger share of public money, voters need to know who is responsible for success or failure.
There is also the question of unequal capacity.
Some regions have large economies, established institutions and significant investment opportunities. Others have weaker tax bases and greater infrastructure challenges.
A national devolution programme would therefore need to ensure that transferring powers does not simply transfer inequalities.
Number 10 North
Burnham has also backed the creation of a stronger government presence in Manchester.
The idea of Number 10 North is intended to symbolise a shift away from London-centred government.
For Burnham, this is more than a geographical gesture. It reflects his long-standing argument that Britain’s political institutions should be more closely connected to communities outside Westminster.
But critics could reasonably ask how much practical power will actually move north.
A government office can be symbolic. Real decentralisation requires budgets, legal authority and decision-making powers.
The success of Number 10 North will therefore depend on what it can actually do rather than where the building is located.
Public Services and the Water Industry
Another major policy area is water.
Burnham’s government has discussed greater public involvement in the water industry, reflecting concerns about infrastructure, environmental standards and the financial performance of water companies.
Changing the structure of the industry would be a complicated process.
Water companies own and operate extensive infrastructure. Investors, employees, regulators and consumers would all be affected by major structural changes.
The government therefore has to consider not only the political appeal of public control but also the financial and legal consequences.
If reform is pursued, the details will matter more than the headline.
Housing Promises
Housing is another area where Burnham wants to make a substantial difference.
He has supported a major expansion of council-house construction and has argued that housing should be treated as a foundation for economic and social security.
The argument is straightforward: Britain needs more affordable homes, particularly in areas where housing costs have increased faster than incomes.
But building homes on the scale required is difficult.
Local authorities need land, planning permission, construction capacity and long-term financing.
There is also a question about location.
Building thousands of houses in areas without adequate transport, schools and employment opportunities would not solve every housing problem.
Burnham’s housing ambitions will therefore need to be connected to his wider regional strategy.
Welfare Creates Another Difficult Choice
The government is also facing difficult decisions over welfare spending.
Personal Independence Payment and other benefits have become increasingly important in the debate over public finances.
Reforming benefits could potentially reduce government expenditure, but changes can also affect people with serious disabilities and long-term conditions.
That means ministers must balance fiscal objectives against the need to protect vulnerable households.
This is another example of the difference between campaigning and governing.
A political movement can promise reform. A government has to define precisely who gains, who loses and how the system will operate.
Is the “First Big Mistake” Really a Mistake?
The phrase “first big mistake” is ultimately a political interpretation.
A new government can make controversial decisions without those decisions necessarily proving to be mistakes.
Some policies may take years to produce measurable results.
Others may change as ministers receive new information.
Burnham’s opponents will naturally use early decisions to challenge his credibility. Supporters will argue that substantial reform inevitably creates disagreement.
The more important test is whether the government can explain its decisions clearly and produce evidence that its policies are achieving their stated objectives.
Britain Is Watching
Burnham’s return to national government has created unusually high expectations.
His political career has been built around the argument that Britain can be governed differently.
Now he has the opportunity to demonstrate whether that argument works at national level.
The early controversies are therefore important, but they are not the final verdict on his government.
Defence spending, taxation, devolution, water, housing and welfare all involve difficult trade-offs.
The government’s success will depend on whether it can manage those trade-offs while maintaining public confidence.
For Burnham, the immediate challenge is not simply surviving criticism. It is proving that the policies he promoted before reaching national office can function within the financial, constitutional and international realities of governing Britain.
His opponents have already identified what they describe as major mistakes. His supporters see the same period as the beginning of a long-term programme of reform.
The difference between those interpretations will ultimately be determined by results.
If regional government becomes more effective, public services improve, housing supply increases and economic growth reaches more parts of the country, Burnham’s approach will gain practical credibility.
If costs rise without corresponding improvements, or if reforms create confusion and administrative problems, criticism is likely to intensify.
For now, Britain is watching the first moves of a government that has promised major change.
Burnham may have been back in national politics for only a short time, but the decisions made during these early months could establish the direction of his entire administration.
The real test will not be whether critics can find something to attack. It will be whether Burnham can turn ambitious promises into policies that work in practice, withstand scrutiny and deliver measurable results for people across the United Kingdom.
You agree you are 18 or over. 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 third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
We are promised that there will be more to come in a future spending review, but that won’t be announced until 2027 at the earliest.
It’s surprising, because Mr Healey quit as defence secretary earlier this year precisely because of the Government’s failure to provide our armed forces with the support they need.
He said in a letter to former Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer: “As we have regularly discussed, I am certain that a headmark date for 3% of GDP on defence in 2030 is what Britain must set. This commitment would have strong cross-party support. Other European allies are stepping up in this way.”
But questioned in Parliament by Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch on Wednesday, Mr Burnham insisted a plan will be revealed “at the spending review”.
It’s a massive error, coming close to the start of his time in Number 10.
And unfortunately, it really matters.
We’d all prefer to believe that the threat from Russia isn’t real, or perhaps that it’s confined to Ukraine.
But experts say we are nearly at war with Russia right now.
Moscow has stepped up its threats against the UK following reports that Ukraine used drones made by British firms to attack targets inside Russia. Asked whether Moscow might strike military facilities in the UK, President Vladimir Putin said: “That’s a secret. A military secret.”
The Kremlin has been accused of conducting a campaign of sabotage against European nations including the UK. Germany said Moscow was behind last month’s drone attack at Leipzig airport, and the Foreign Office yesterday summoned Russia’s charge d’affaires for a meeting to condemn the attack.
Russia was blamed for a cyber-attack that shut down Jaguar Land Rover factories in the UK, costing an estimated £1.9 billion.
Keir Starmer himself warned in June: “It is our intelligence assessment and the assessment of other countries in NATO that there could be an attack by Russia on NATO as soon as 2030.”
If Russia attacks any NATO country, that means the UK, as a NATO member, has to defend them.
We need to be ready to fight, if the worst happens.
But what we all really want is to avoid a war – and how do we do that?
It’s by making it clear to Russian dictator Vladimir Putin that we are capable of fighting back against Russian aggression. That’s how we make him think twice.
By failing to explain how he will give our armed forces the resources they need, Andy Burnham is giving succour to Putin and making the world a more dangerous place.
