Readers will be forgiven for thinking that, in his speech yesterday, Burnham was attempting to play some type of game that can only be described as ‘buzzword bingo.’
The rules of the game are simple: fit as many meaningless, political buzzwords into a speech as you can, and then fail to offer any explanation for how these things will be achieved – the winner gets the keys to Number 10.
I couldn’t count the exact number that Burnham reached, but the most notable I heard were “radical change”, getting the country “back on track” and ensuring we have “sound public finances.”
I regard these terms as meaningless because Burnham offered no substantive policy proposals nor ideas to actually reinforce them. It was a ponzi scheme of policy, with each successive idea being bolstered not through substance but yet more buzzwords. A sort of Jenga tower of ideas, the base of which is weak and faltering, preparing to collapse under the weight of public scrutiny at any moment. Aside from devolving power away from Westminster, how does he actually intend to achieve his aims? It felt like a half-baked series of policy announcements: the end goal was in sight, but how we as a country get there was not discussed.
That is not to say that some of the ideas he suggested were not of value. “Shouldn’t we make our high streets the symbol of Britain’s renaissance?” Burnham asked to the floor of the People’s History Museum. Should we not want to “reduce the welfare bill in a way that is fair and lasting” in a way that is managed through the “stability that comes from sound public finances.”
They are all good ideas in theory, yes – after all, one of the Tories’ slogans is quite literally ‘Stronger high streets.’ But these ideas fall short of being good in practice because Burnham neither set out, nor even hinted at, how such changes would be made or funded. Promising the public the world with no answer on how such things would be achieved is a dangerous feat that we Conservatives know all too well…
But of course, that is why the media exists. To press the future prime minister on these all important issues, and ask him the hard-hitting questions of how his envisioned change would be brought about. To hold power to account.
Except, there were no media questions. No journalist was offered the chance to question Burnham on his speech. Instead, he gave himself a hearty round of applause, and walked out the door. ‘Exit stage right’ I imagine his advisor whispered to him.
It may seem like a somewhat minor criticism, but I would argue that it is telling of Burnham’s relationship with the media more generally. Other journalists have already pointed out that it doesn’t say much about a future prime minister if they are unable to answer just a handful of questions. To hide behind the pitiful excuse of time constraints seems rather lazy.
But take all of this – the lack of substance in the speech, the unwillingness to answer questions from the media and so on, and compare it to Kemi Badenoch’s speech yesterday.
When it came to the substance of her speech, she didn’t hold back and said it how it is. “Britain is heading for a summer of chaos” she said, with “all major policy and spending decisions” having “been put on hold.”
“No one is dealing with the serious and urgent threats that this country faces.” Instead, “ministers in the home office are fighting each other” and “Rachel Reeves is ringing round businesses, trying to get them to say that sacking her would risk destabilising the economy.”
It wasn’t a speech that necessitated some long, drawn out policy proposal as Burnham’s did. It was a speech which required her to expose the situation for what it is, rather than sugarcoating it as so many other politicians seem to do.
And yet, despite this, Badenoch still went on to talk about the Conservative Party’s policies. When she made the plea to “get people working” she argued that it should be done through cutting the welfare bill and scrapping the Employment Rights Act. It wasn’t a one-hundred page policy breakdown accompanied with citations and a peer review, but it was enough for people to look on and say:
‘Hmmm, at least she has a plan.’
This is crucial for how we understand the differences between Badenoch and Burnham. Whilst Badenoch’s speech was a breath of much needed fresh air, Burnham’s speech was nothing but a load of hot air. The contrast is striking.
But the cherry on top? Badenoch stayed and took questions from the media. She put herself before the spotlight of public scrutiny, and – most importantly – didn’t falter. Kemi was “very strong on the Q&A” one MP texted me – “a marked contrast to her soon-to-be opponent.”
“She keeps getting better and better” another MP texts me, if she keeps it up then “these things will cut through.”
It is reassuring to see Badenoch in such a strong position. I will be entirely transparent, I worried a tad when I imagined Burnham and Badenoch going head to head against one another at PMQs. I assumed that Badenoch’s success when facing Starmer came, in part, due to Starmer’s inability to sound human.
His robotic mannerisms made it easy for Badenoch to land blow after blow at the despatch box. And so, when I pictured Burnham taking Starmer’s place, I grew somewhat worried. When he hit back at Badenoch’s comments about him being nothing more than a “pair of eyelashes and a black T-shirt” I worried even more. ‘It can’t be’ I thought – ‘the next PM has a personality?’
But after witnessing the two speeches yesterday, I have come to realise that I have no reason to be worried. What Burnham lacks in policy, he makes up for in charisma, yes – but Badenoch lacks neither charisma nor policy, and that is exactly what the country needs at the moment.