Andy Burnham returned to the House of Commons after an absence of 16 years from the front bench to address a country that has changed governments and prime ministers much more readily than it has changed its economic prospects. Growth remains weak, productivity has scarcely improved, and output per person has stagnated. Public services require more money to maintain standards which fewer of their users regard as satisfactory, while the tax burden has risen and the state’s room for maneuver has narrowed. Housing absorbs a disproportionate share of younger workers’ incomes; electricity, transport, food, and childcare cost enough to make even good salaries inadequate; local authorities have withdrawn services once regarded as ordinary; and regional inequalities treated as a national emergency for nearly four decades remain sufficiently intact to support another generation of initiatives intended to abolish them.
The political consequences extend well beyond the Labour constituencies most receptive to Burnham’s account of their origin. Average prices have increased by roughly 30 percent since 2021. Mortgage holders refinancing after the era of negligible interest rates face large increases; renters encounter a housing shortage that governments have spent years promising to cure; employers complain about taxes, energy, skills, and regulation; employees wonder why an economy suffering labor shortages has produced so little improvement in wages or security. The electorate has voted in succession for austerity, Brexit, levelling up, stability, and change, receiving an instructive demonstration of how many political programs can be consumed without producing much growth. Reform and the Greens prosper from different parts of the resulting conviction that the established parties take turns explaining constraints while daily life becomes more expensive and the country’s governing machinery less impressive.
Burnham therefore possessed a considerable advantage over most prime ministers making their parliamentary debut. The failures he described scarcely required invention, and almost nobody expected him to resemble a prime minister in the conventional Westminster sense. The dispatch box usually exposes the habits acquired on the way to it—evasion, over-preparation, the nervous production of statistics supplied by departments chiefly because departments happen to possess them. Burnham had spent nearly a decade conducting politics before audiences inclined to regard Westminster as an affliction imposed upon the country. He spoke for more than three hours, answered MPs with confidence, and appeared pleased but not unduly grateful to be there. Even opponents conceded the effectiveness of the performance. The Commons had spent the previous six weeks discussing what Burnham might do; Burnham had spent much of his political life preparing to explain why the Commons had failed to do it.
His answer had acquired a serviceable historical sequence by the time he delivered it: “Political power was centralized, economic power privatized, the country deindustrialized. Austerity followed, hollowing out councils and depriving them of the agency to act to reverse any of this. And then Brexit compounded the damage, ushering in a decade of low growth and stalled regeneration.” The policies of the past 40 years had removed control from communities, allowed wealth to be “extracted and siphoned out,” and left too many places drifting. Burnham proposed to return control through devolution, public supervision of essential services, council housebuilding, regional investment, public procurement, and a state prepared to exercise economic power rather than merely regulate its use by somebody else.
Water, housing, and energy received particular attention; Louise Haigh was pointed out to lead three task forces charged with reducing essential costs, regenerating communities, and determining how much stronger public control could achieve. Burnham’s immediate measures included the removal of VAT from domestic electricity, restoration of the £2 bus-fare cap, and business-rate relief for pubs, clubs, and other favored occupants of the high street. Beyond them lay the largest council-house program since the war, a national care service, increased defense expenditure, reindustrialization through public procurement, an end to rough sleeping, and a 10-year plan for transferring power and economic agency away from Westminster. The ambition carried its own method of fiscal sequencing: affordable measures could begin at once, expensive promises could become task forces, and the eventual growth produced by the initial steps could help pay for a program the cost of which had yet to be established.
Financial markets had already displayed some interest in the difference between Burnham’s immediate measures and his larger intentions. When he entered Downing Street in July, the 10-year gilt yield rose by about eight basis points after he said that his government would use whatever flexibility it could find within the fiscal rules; the 30-year yield rose by about nine basis points, and sterling weakened. This was neither a market panic nor an irrelevant fluctuation. Investors were charging a slightly higher price for uncertainty about a government promising more expenditure before identifying corresponding revenues. Gilts sold off much more sharply on the day of his Commons appearance, pushing 10-year borrowing costs above 5 percent and 30-year yields close to 6 percent, but sovereign bonds were falling across the advanced economies as higher oil prices renewed fears of inflation. Burnham did not personally cause a global bond rout from the dispatch box. He did, however, unveil an expansive domestic prospectus at the moment when the cost of financing one was becoming less forgiving.
This was not quite a program and cannot honestly be costed as one. Burnham announced no comprehensive spending total, revenue plan, public-ownership model, or estimate of the growth his measures would generate. His 10-year plan is due later in the year, and the budget on October 28. The immediate measures adopted since July—the removal of VAT from domestic electricity, restoration of the £2 bus-fare cap, temporary free travel for children, and changes to business rates—are comparatively small. Eliminating the 5 percent VAT charge on electricity is expected to cost approximately £850 million in 2026–27 and to save an average household about £45 a year. The government says it will pay for the measure by canceling Starmer’s digital-identity program, previously expected to cost £1.8 billion over three years. The saving and expenditure do not fall in precisely the same years, and abandonment costs may reduce the saving, but the arithmetic is not inherently fantastical. It is an unambitious tax cut financed by the cancellation of another government project, a form of fiscal rectitude that becomes easier when the project belonged to one’s predecessor. The Commons Library has catalogued the measures Burnham announced during his first week; the £2 bus cap similarly replaces the existing £3 cap rather than creating an entirely new subsidy.
These policies offer relief without substantially altering the cost structure of the economy. Forty-five pounds reduces an electricity bill; it does not make electricity appreciably cheaper to produce. A bus subsidy lowers the fare for passengers, but somebody else must pay the difference. Reduced business rates may help a pub or shop, but part of the eventual benefit is passed to landlords through higher rents. Each measure can be defended on distributional or social grounds, but none justifies Burnham’s larger claim that public control of essential costs supplies an engine of growth. They are transfers, tax reductions, or subsidies, and their aggregate economic effect depends upon how they are financed. The political attraction lies in their visibility. A household can observe a lower fare or tax line; it can’t inspect the cancellation of an information-technology program that had not yet produced anything useful enough to be missed.
The prospective commitments—the council-housing program, defense expenditures, and so on—occupy another fiscal category altogether. Burnham has retained the existing fiscal rules and, at least formally, Labour’s promise not to increase the main rates of income tax, National Insurance, or value-added tax (VAT). He declined before his Commons appearance to exclude other tax increases, an intellectually respectable refusal that will become politically expensive as soon as the Treasury attaches names to them. Wealth taxes, council-tax revaluation, property levies, pension changes, capital-gains tax, inheritance tax, and further threshold freezes all possess constituencies smaller than the electorate but considerably larger than governments remember while considering them.
Burnham inherited neither a fiscal surplus nor the low borrowing costs which once allowed politicians to confuse cheap money with permanent economic liberation. Economists quoted by the Financial Times estimated that the chancellor’s headroom against the fiscal rules could fall from £24 billion to roughly £13 billion if elevated bond yields persisted. The assessment carried out by the Institute for Fiscal Studies was characteristically unromantic: high debt-interest expenditure, constrained tax options, stretched departments, and simultaneous pressures from defense, welfare, social care, and public services. Burnham has changed the government’s rhetoric and some of its personnel. The Debt Management Office has not adjusted gilt coupons to reflect Downing Street’s confidence that growth will reconcile its ambitions with the public finances.
Defense alone threatens to absorb much of the room available. Burnham strongly implied that expenditure would reach 3 percent of GDP by 2030, while retaining the longer-term NATO commitment of 3.5 percent. With a GDP approaching £3 trillion, every additional tenth of 1 percent represents roughly £3 billion a year before allowing for growth or differences in the official definition. Moving from approximately 2.5 to 3 percent therefore approaches £15 billion annually at present values. Some money had already been allocated, some may be found through departmental economies, and additional defense production can support British employment, but a government does not finance missiles by counting the wages paid to the people who manufacture them. The defense investment plan already contains a gap reported at about £4.7 billion; the Treasury is considering departmental reductions to help meet it. Burnham’s appointment of John Healey as chancellor partly signaled that defense would be protected, though protecting one large department in a constrained spending settlement is another way of identifying the departments from which money will be removed.
The industrial argument is stronger than the fiscal one. Defense procurement can sustain aerospace in Lancashire, shipbuilding at Barrow, steel in Sheffield, advanced manufacturing in the Midlands, and supply chains extending through regions which have received rather less benefit from Britain’s service-led growth. Long contracts can support apprenticeships, capital investment, and specialist skills. Governments need not pretend indifference between purchasing equipment made domestically and importing it when the domestic product is reasonably competitive. Yet a procurement approach designed simultaneously to deliver military capability, preserve employment, rebalance regions, create apprenticeships, maintain sovereign capacity, satisfy allies, and deliver value for money entails the pursuit of many objectives may frequently conflict. Buying British may be strategically justified even when it costs more; describing the additional cost as growth does not cause it to disappear. The Ministry of Defence has spent several decades demonstrating that industrial policy becomes particularly expensive when protected by national security justification from ordinary standards of commercial embarrassment.
There’s also a more comprehensive case for council housebuilding than the undifferentiated language of expenditure implies. Houses are assets; their rents produce income; additional supply can reduce temporary-accommodation costs and eventually relieve the housing-benefit bill. Construction stimulates demand, and secure housing can improve employment and health. A government able to borrow more cheaply than many private developers may build where the market has failed. But land, labor, materials, planning capacity, and construction skills remain scarce. Local authorities stripped of staff during austerity can’t instantly administer the largest program since 1945 because a prime minister has restored their agency in a speech. If the central government supplies capital grants, the expenditure appears in the public finances. If councils borrow, public debt rises. If private partners finance construction, they require returns. If landowners are compelled to accept lower prices, a distributive choice has been made and will be litigated. Houses may justify borrowing; they do not abolish its costs.
Social care presents a still less accommodating problem. A national care service could improve a fragmented, underpaid, and financially precarious system. It might reduce delayed discharges from hospitals, support unpaid carers, standardize eligibility, and prevent local authorities from paying providers rates which force private residents to subsidize publicly funded places. None of these gains, however, makes care inexpensive. The principal input is human labor, productivity improvements are necessarily limited, demand rises as the population ages, and better wages cost money precisely because the present system has economized through low wages. The government has already committed an additional £4.6 billion for adult social care in 2028–29, while the design and funding of a national service remain unsettled. A task force can reconcile interests on paper; it cannot reconcile universal entitlement, higher pay, better provision, protection of family assets, and restrained taxation unless one of those nouns is being used ceremonially.
Public ownership of water supplies the purest expression of Burnham’s politics and the clearest illustration of its unresolved economics. The existing arrangement deserves little sentimental defense. The industry has combined rising bills, poor infrastructure, sewage discharges, complex financing, dividend extraction, and executive remuneration with a demand that customers finance the investment neglected while money left the companies. Thames Water carries approximately £20 billion of debt and has relied upon rescue finance at rates approaching 10 percent. Burnham’s description of water privatization as a “leaking monument” was effective because the monument has so obligingly supplied leaks.
Nationalization nevertheless requires tough decisions, which no amount of indignation can make disappear. The government’s earlier estimate put the cost of acquiring the English water industry near £100 billion, based largely upon regulatory capital value; advocates of public ownership argue that distressed companies could be acquired for much less and that shareholders or creditors need not receive full compensation. The government’s published methodology placed the sector’s regulatory capital value above £106 billion in 2025. Neither figure settles the question. A special administration of Thames Water might impose losses on investors and allow temporary public control at a far lower acquisition price, but the pipes would still require repair, reservoirs would still require construction, and the resulting public corporation would still require capital. Public ownership can eliminate dividends, reduce financing costs, and direct investment differently. It can’t make the cost of replacing Victorian infrastructure vanish; it changes the institution through which customers or taxpayers pay it.
Burnham further assumes that devolving power will produce growth because local authorities understand local needs better than Whitehall. The premise has considerable evidence behind it. Britain remains unusually centralized, competitive bidding has forced councils to spend scarce administrative resources pleading for small grants, and national departments frequently allocate transport or regeneration money according to rules remote from local economic conditions. Greater local control over transport, housing, skills, and land use could improve decisions. Burnham’s experience with Greater Manchester’s bus network supplies more than a slogan: Integrated fares and routes can produce a public service less disjointed than the deregulated system.
The government’s proposed revenue-sharing arrangements, however, devolve exposure as well as power. Mayors are expected eventually to retain shares of income-tax and business-rate revenues raised within their areas. Prosperous regions possess broad tax bases; poorer regions do not. Without a substantial equalization mechanism, greater fiscal autonomy can preserve or widen the inequalities it is intended to correct. With equalization, the Treasury continues to determine how much money moves between places, and local freedom depends upon a formula designed in Whitehall. The IFS assessment of the revenue-sharing proposal noted precisely this tension. Burnham can transfer decisions from London. He cannot transfer London’s tax base to Wigan by conferring agency on Wigan.
Burnham’s account of deindustrialization also requires some correction. Britain did not possess in 1979 a healthy industrial economy which Thatcher gratuitously dismantled. Manufacturing employment had been falling, productivity was poor in important sectors, coal had been losing markets to oil, gas, nuclear power, and cheaper foreign production, and industrial employment declined throughout the advanced world as automation and Asian manufacturing expanded. France, Germany, the United States, Belgium, and Japan underwent versions of the same transition under governments of sharply different ideologies. No plausible British administration could have preserved the employment structure of the 1960s against technological change, international competition, containerization, falling transport costs, and consumers’ preference for cheaper goods.
But Thatcher’s governments did influence the violence, speed, and geographical distribution of the adjustment. Tight monetary policy, sterling appreciation, the early-1980s recession, withdrawal of subsidy, trade-union legislation, financial deregulation, and a willingness to permit uneconomical industrial capacity to disappear accelerated changes already under way and concentrated their costs in communities with few alternatives. The handling of the miners’ strike and the absence of adequate replacement employment left social damage that GDP statistics did not record. It is reasonable to argue that the state could have cushioned the transition, preserved more capacity to some degree, or invested earlier in affected regions. It is far less reasonable to assert, as Burnham did, that deindustrialization began as a Downing Street policy in 1979 or, as Burnham suggested, that reversing Thatcherism can restore an industrial world dismantled by forces over which Margaret Thatcher exercised limited or no control.
As for Burnham’s assertion that Brexit “usher[ed] in a decade of low economic growth,” while it’s quite a bit clearer than its supporters would have it that Brexit hasn’t helped growth, how much (if at all) it actually damaged the economy is uncertain. The closer ties with Europe that Burnham has mooted, however, won’t accomplish the goals he suggests. Regulatory alignment, a veterinary agreement, easier labor mobility, and reduced border friction may improve the economic position at the margin, but official estimates suggest that the government’s proposed reset will reclaim only a small portion of the long-run loss Burnham has attributed to Brexit. Recovering much more would require concessions on sovereignty, regulation, migration, and the jurisdiction of European institutions which Burnham has no present mandate to make and which many Leave-voting supporters—and many Leave-voting former supporters whom Labour wants to win back—would passionately resist. Burnham has tried to square this political circle by declaring that he hopes Britain will rejoin the European Union during his lifetime while declining to make reentry the policy of his government.
Burnham’s simplified history performs indispensable work for his program. If today’s problems arose principally from political decisions, new political decisions can reverse them. Clear-eyed structural explanations offer a less satisfactory prospectus. Aging populations, weak productivity, expensive energy, technological displacement, skill shortages, global competition, and the economic concentration produced by successful cities do not yield to the return of “control.” Conservatives, for their part, employ the same method when they attribute stagnation to regulation, taxation, welfare dependency, or trade unions, as though another supply-side reform will finally release the growth concealed by the previous six. British parties differ over the obstruction; they share an increasingly touching confidence that they possess the lever.
Burnham’s history also absolves Labour governments, which governed Britain for 13 of the 40 years he condemns, of any responsibility for these less-than-satisfactory outcomes. (And Burnham, it should be noted, served in those governments). New Labour did not renationalize water, reverse financial liberalization (in fact it eagerly accelerated that process), reconstruct local government, or return economic power to industrial communities. It redistributed income, expanded public services, introduced the minimum wage, and spent heavily on regional programs, but its fiscal model depended upon the tax revenues generated by the very financial economy Burnham regards as extractive. The long indictment of Thatcherism becomes awkward if pursued through the Brown and Blair years, so austerity and Brexit arrive to divide the chronology into politically convenient ownership. Conservatives can then reply that the prime minister wants to return to the 1970s, avoiding the more difficult admission that privatized monopolies and Britain’s infrastructure record have furnished him with excellent material.
The economic case against Burnham should not be overstated merely because he has overstated the economic case for himself. Public ownership can outperform badly regulated private monopoly. Council housing can produce assets and reduce other public expenditure. Integrated public transport can expand labor markets. Devolution can improve investment decisions. Procurement can protect capabilities which a country may later regret losing. Higher public investment can raise growth, particularly when the alternative is decaying infrastructure. The Thatcher settlement didn’t resolve Britain’s productivity problem, and private ownership has often supplied no competition, little investment, and exceptionally inventive financing. Conservative Leader Kemi Badenoch’s invocation of the 1970s answers a program Burnham has not proposed and defends arrangements she would probably redesign if they had been created by Labour.
Burnham’s difficulty lies less in the individual proposals than in their simultaneous assembly. Lower household costs, better services, higher public investment, more defense spending, improved social care, council housebuilding, regional equalization, industrial support, and fiscal stability can coexist only with substantially higher taxation, reductions elsewhere, unusually successful execution, or growth effects larger and faster than serious forecasts normally permit. Public ownership may reduce some long-run costs, but it does require substantial capital and managerial capacity at the beginning. Preventive spending may save money eventually, but demands that government finance prevention while continuing to pay for the failures already accumulated. Investment can generate growth, but not invariably, not immediately, and not in the amount entered by ministers who require it to close a budget.
Subscribe Today
Get daily emails in your inbox
So far Burnham has dealt with this conflict by separating the time horizons. Immediate relief is financed through cancellations or modest revenue changes; expensive reforms are assigned to reviews, task forces, and a 10-year plan; growth supplies the eventual reconciliation; and the promised “honest conversation” postpones rather than answers the awkward question of who pays when the bill arrives. This is hardly unique to Burnham. Liz Truss treated tax reductions as self-financing investments, Conservatives repeatedly promised that welfare reform would protect public services while reducing taxation, and Starmer attached large future benefits to planning reform because the benefits did not have to appear in the current spending round. Burnham’s version replaces the right’s belief that tax cuts release growth with the left’s belief that public investment pays for itself. Both contain enough truth to survive long after the arithmetic has ceased to cooperate.
The Commons debut succeeded because Burnham offered a persuasive description of political failure and postponed the choices required to pursue his remedy. Britain does suffer from high essential costs, inadequate investment, weak regional growth, decayed local capacity, and utilities organized more successfully for financial extraction than public confidence. Burnham understands the political connection among these failures better than most of his rivals. He has not yet demonstrated that public control constitutes an economic model rather than a preference for who receives the invoice.
The numbers consequently do not add up, although not in the simple sense that a column has been totaled incorrectly. Burnham has not supplied the columns. The policies already enacted are affordable because they are small. The bigger efforts—the ones needed to realize his promised transformation—remain uncosted, unsequenced, or assigned to bodies instructed to discover how they might work. His fiscal rules, defense ambitions, tax constraints, and domestic program cannot all survive in their present form. By Budget Day, something will have to yield; by then the government will probably describe the yielding as the first stage of the 10-year plan. Burnham arrived in the Commons promising honesty about 40 years of economic choices. His premiership will depend upon how long he can postpone the considerably less congenial honesty about his own.
