Stuart Carroll is a former Cllr and cabinet member for adult social care, health and children services and former member of the UK Vaccines Taskforce. He currently chairs the Conservative Health Policy Forum and has been advising the Conservative Party on health, life sciences and welfare policy. Like Andy Burnham, he is also a big Smiths fan.
(Twelve well known song titles from the band The Smiths make an appearance in Stuart’s piece – Editor)
Andy Burnham is fast becoming the Eric Morecambe of British politics. He has some of the right notes, but is playing none of them in the right order. Alright sunshine I’ll give him that!
Unlike the tuneless Starmer, the Prime Minster has won himself an early hearing with a divided British public. This Charming Man.
Nonetheless, the big difference is that Morecambe was trying to entertain the nation. Burnham is now Prime Minister, not Mayor of Manchester, nor Mayor of the UK, and must urgently explain his forward-looking vision and strategy for the nation.
With John Healey’s first Budget approaching on 28 October, the distinction matters. Britain faces profoundly difficult choices. Growth is anaemic, welfare spending continues to strain the public finances, and an increasingly dangerous world demands greater investment in defence. Yet much of the Government’s activity seems designed to persuade voters that cheaper bus fares, concessionary travel and even TikToks about Freddos constitute an economic strategy.
There is something wonderfully Morecambe and Wise about all of it. A nation confronting structural problems receives crowd-pleasing announcements. The audience may enjoy the performance, but somebody eventually has to pay the orchestra. There is a Light That Never Goes Out.
Burnham is not wrong about everything.
Britain has serious problems with infrastructure, housing, regional inequality and public services. Productivity growth has disappointed and too many communities have been left behind. Having served in local government, including responsibility for adult social care and children’s services, I know the present settlement is far from perfect.
Yet diagnosing problems is not solving them.
Much of Burnham’s economic thinking appears rooted in a romantic interpretation of Britain’s past: that the country took a terrible wrong turn in 1979 and recovering the pre-Thatcher settlement offers national renewal. Listening to this argument, one might imagine the 1970s were wonderful. Mills hummed, shipyards flourished, nationalised industries served the public interest and trade unions protected working people. Then Margaret Thatcher arrived with her handbag and spoiled everything.
There is one inconvenient truth.
The British electorate lived through the 1970s and voted for something different. Thatcherism emerged in response to the failures of the post-war economic settlement. Inflation, industrial unrest, poor productivity and declining competitiveness were realities successive governments struggled to manage. We even had a three day week. Stop Me If You Think You’ve Heard This One Before.
In 1976, Labour sought assistance from the International Monetary Fund. James Callaghan acknowledged that governments could no longer simply spend their way out of recession. That was not Thatcher speaking. It was a Labour Prime Minister recognising that his party’s economic assumptions were failing. Then came the Winter of Discontent. Callaghan lost office because the public had lost confidence in the existing arrangements.
Of course, not everything Thatcher did was correct, although her overall scorecard remains extremely positive. Some privatisations worked better than others. Water raises legitimate questions about regulation and investment. Conservatives should also recognise the damage caused by deindustrialisation and inadequate reskilling of an entire lost generation, particularly across northern England. Yet Burnham’s apparent belief that Britain could have continued along its previous economic course requires considerable historical amnesia.
Consider the alternative. More Sonny Jim? Back to Wilson? Perhaps Michael Foot, whose 1983 manifesto promised extensive nationalisation, unilateral nuclear disarmament and withdrawal from the European Economic Community. Even Labour Manchester MP Gerald Kaufman famously described it as the ‘longest suicide note in history’. Labour won just 209 seats leaving Thatcher with a thumping majority.
The public emphatically told Labour Heaven Knows I Am Miserable Now.
Neil Kinnock understood Labour needed to change. He confronted militants and moderated unpopular policies. Yet he lost in 1987 and again in 1992. It took Tony Blair to complete the transformation. Whatever Conservatives think of Blair, he understood that Britain was not waiting for the return of 1974. Labour had to accommodate much of the economic change since 1979. Blair won three general elections. The Boy With The Thorn In His Side.
If the pre-Thatcher settlement was so successful, why did Labour spend nearly two decades escaping it?
Britain’s challenges are about the future, not reconstructing British Leyland. Artificial intelligence, biotechnology, advanced manufacturing, defence technology and energy security will determine prosperity. They require investment, skills, innovation and a competitive business environment.
Nationalisation does not automatically deliver efficiency. Public ownership does not eliminate debt, capital requirements or incompetent management. Ownership matters, but outcomes matter more. Just take Manchester City and their impending doom. Burnham’s defence of the Blue Moon regime were hardly bawling for the 1970s. Bigmouth Strikes Again.
This brings us to the Budget. Russia’s aggression, instability in the Middle East and China’s growing strategic challenge demand serious decisions about defence. Britain needs personnel, equipment, munitions and industrial capacity. Biosecurity also requires urgent attention. These capabilities need sustained investment, not social media videos. That money must come from somewhere. Burnham’s economic policy is hardly Hand in Glove.
Kemi Badenoch has placed welfare reform and spending restraint at the centre of the Conservative response. Will Burnham and Healey confront comparable trade-offs?
Nobody sensible suggests abandoning people genuinely unable to work. Supporting those with serious disabilities and illnesses is a fundamental obligation. I have been working with Helen Whately on precisely these challenges. However, a welfare system absorbing increasing resources must be examined, particularly alongside persistent economic inactivity. Eligibility, incentives, employment support and responsibilities all deserve scrutiny. Reform requires safeguards, but avoiding difficult questions is no answer.
If defence spending must rise, ministers should explain how they will pay. Higher taxes? Borrowing? Savings elsewhere? Faster growth but where, when and how? These are the choices determining whether Britain can defend itself while maintaining sustainable public services. My experience in government, including work around the pandemic, taught me how quickly political ambition collides with delivery. Announcements are easy. Making budgets, institutions, procurement and personnel work together is harder. Socialism? The Joke Isn’t Funny Anymore.
Social care demonstrates the same problem.
A National Care Service may sound appealing, but workforce shortages, demographic pressures and inadequate funding do not disappear through rebranding. Somebody still pays. Cheaper buses and concessionary travel have benefits, particularly for people facing barriers to employment, education and healthcare. But helping somebody reach work is different from creating a productive economy offering worthwhile jobs. Subsidising a bus journey and rebuilding the Royal Navy are not equivalent strategic priorities. Burnham appears more comfortable promising immediate benefits than explaining uncomfortable choices. Yet governing is about priorities, not assembling agreeable announcements. It is time to Ask.
Conservatives cannot be complacent. Our own 14 year record, despite many positive things, sadly does include weak productivity, inadequate housebuilding, persistent regional disparities, and Liz Truss. Invoking Thatcher will not solve 2026 any more than invoking Attlee. How Soon Is Now?
A credible Conservative alternative must demonstrate how to generate growth, reform welfare, strengthen defence and improve public services without treating borrowing as limitless. This means policy and detail. Yet Burnham faces exactly the same test. The Budget must establish whether his Government can reconcile competing demands upon the state. How will Britain finance stronger defence, control welfare expenditure while protecting vulnerable people, encourage investment and productivity, and deliver sustainable public services? The Burnham government is so far falling way short of any credible answers. The Prime Minister seems to be following a Please, Please, Please Let Me Get What I Want strategy.
These questions matter far more than nostalgia for the supposedly wonderful Britain of the 1970s.
Eric Morecambe could play the wrong notes and leave audiences in stitches. That was his genius. Yet running the British economy is not a comedy routine.
Burnham may hit some of the right notes and connect with slick comms and appealing presentation. However, the Budget will reveal whether his Government knows what order to play them in and how to pay for the band. Sadly, we have reasons to be highly sceptical. And unlike André Previn, the British taxpayer cannot simply walk off the stage. So Mr Healy please play us a bright, clear and radical tune to take us into 2027 and beyond rather than sounding back to the Panic of the 1970s. Otherwise, and per all my references to Burnham’s beloved Smiths songs, the Prime Minister might look back at his Makerfield win as I Started Something I Couldn’t Finish.
Stuart Carroll is a former Cllr and cabinet member for adult social care, health and children services and former member of the UK Vaccines Taskforce. He currently chairs the Conservative Health Policy Forum and has been advising the Conservative Party on health, life sciences and welfare policy. Like Andy Burnham, he is also a big Smiths fan.
(Twelve well known song titles from the band The Smiths make an appearance in Stuart’s piece – Editor)
Andy Burnham is fast becoming the Eric Morecambe of British politics. He has some of the right notes, but is playing none of them in the right order. Alright sunshine I’ll give him that!
Unlike the tuneless Starmer, the Prime Minster has won himself an early hearing with a divided British public. This Charming Man.
Nonetheless, the big difference is that Morecambe was trying to entertain the nation. Burnham is now Prime Minister, not Mayor of Manchester, nor Mayor of the UK, and must urgently explain his forward-looking vision and strategy for the nation.
With John Healey’s first Budget approaching on 28 October, the distinction matters. Britain faces profoundly difficult choices. Growth is anaemic, welfare spending continues to strain the public finances, and an increasingly dangerous world demands greater investment in defence. Yet much of the Government’s activity seems designed to persuade voters that cheaper bus fares, concessionary travel and even TikToks about Freddos constitute an economic strategy.
There is something wonderfully Morecambe and Wise about all of it. A nation confronting structural problems receives crowd-pleasing announcements. The audience may enjoy the performance, but somebody eventually has to pay the orchestra. There is a Light That Never Goes Out.
Burnham is not wrong about everything.
Britain has serious problems with infrastructure, housing, regional inequality and public services. Productivity growth has disappointed and too many communities have been left behind. Having served in local government, including responsibility for adult social care and children’s services, I know the present settlement is far from perfect.
Yet diagnosing problems is not solving them.
Much of Burnham’s economic thinking appears rooted in a romantic interpretation of Britain’s past: that the country took a terrible wrong turn in 1979 and recovering the pre-Thatcher settlement offers national renewal. Listening to this argument, one might imagine the 1970s were wonderful. Mills hummed, shipyards flourished, nationalised industries served the public interest and trade unions protected working people. Then Margaret Thatcher arrived with her handbag and spoiled everything.
There is one inconvenient truth.
The British electorate lived through the 1970s and voted for something different. Thatcherism emerged in response to the failures of the post-war economic settlement. Inflation, industrial unrest, poor productivity and declining competitiveness were realities successive governments struggled to manage. We even had a three day week. Stop Me If You Think You’ve Heard This One Before.
In 1976, Labour sought assistance from the International Monetary Fund. James Callaghan acknowledged that governments could no longer simply spend their way out of recession. That was not Thatcher speaking. It was a Labour Prime Minister recognising that his party’s economic assumptions were failing. Then came the Winter of Discontent. Callaghan lost office because the public had lost confidence in the existing arrangements.
Of course, not everything Thatcher did was correct, although her overall scorecard remains extremely positive. Some privatisations worked better than others. Water raises legitimate questions about regulation and investment. Conservatives should also recognise the damage caused by deindustrialisation and inadequate reskilling of an entire lost generation, particularly across northern England. Yet Burnham’s apparent belief that Britain could have continued along its previous economic course requires considerable historical amnesia.
Consider the alternative. More Sonny Jim? Back to Wilson? Perhaps Michael Foot, whose 1983 manifesto promised extensive nationalisation, unilateral nuclear disarmament and withdrawal from the European Economic Community. Even Labour Manchester MP Gerald Kaufman famously described it as the ‘longest suicide note in history’. Labour won just 209 seats leaving Thatcher with a thumping majority.
The public emphatically told Labour Heaven Knows I Am Miserable Now.
Neil Kinnock understood Labour needed to change. He confronted militants and moderated unpopular policies. Yet he lost in 1987 and again in 1992. It took Tony Blair to complete the transformation. Whatever Conservatives think of Blair, he understood that Britain was not waiting for the return of 1974. Labour had to accommodate much of the economic change since 1979. Blair won three general elections. The Boy With The Thorn In His Side.
If the pre-Thatcher settlement was so successful, why did Labour spend nearly two decades escaping it?
Britain’s challenges are about the future, not reconstructing British Leyland. Artificial intelligence, biotechnology, advanced manufacturing, defence technology and energy security will determine prosperity. They require investment, skills, innovation and a competitive business environment.
Nationalisation does not automatically deliver efficiency. Public ownership does not eliminate debt, capital requirements or incompetent management. Ownership matters, but outcomes matter more. Just take Manchester City and their impending doom. Burnham’s defence of the Blue Moon regime were hardly bawling for the 1970s. Bigmouth Strikes Again.
This brings us to the Budget. Russia’s aggression, instability in the Middle East and China’s growing strategic challenge demand serious decisions about defence. Britain needs personnel, equipment, munitions and industrial capacity. Biosecurity also requires urgent attention. These capabilities need sustained investment, not social media videos. That money must come from somewhere. Burnham’s economic policy is hardly Hand in Glove.
Kemi Badenoch has placed welfare reform and spending restraint at the centre of the Conservative response. Will Burnham and Healey confront comparable trade-offs?
Nobody sensible suggests abandoning people genuinely unable to work. Supporting those with serious disabilities and illnesses is a fundamental obligation. I have been working with Helen Whately on precisely these challenges. However, a welfare system absorbing increasing resources must be examined, particularly alongside persistent economic inactivity. Eligibility, incentives, employment support and responsibilities all deserve scrutiny. Reform requires safeguards, but avoiding difficult questions is no answer.
If defence spending must rise, ministers should explain how they will pay. Higher taxes? Borrowing? Savings elsewhere? Faster growth but where, when and how? These are the choices determining whether Britain can defend itself while maintaining sustainable public services. My experience in government, including work around the pandemic, taught me how quickly political ambition collides with delivery. Announcements are easy. Making budgets, institutions, procurement and personnel work together is harder. Socialism? The Joke Isn’t Funny Anymore.
Social care demonstrates the same problem.
A National Care Service may sound appealing, but workforce shortages, demographic pressures and inadequate funding do not disappear through rebranding. Somebody still pays. Cheaper buses and concessionary travel have benefits, particularly for people facing barriers to employment, education and healthcare. But helping somebody reach work is different from creating a productive economy offering worthwhile jobs. Subsidising a bus journey and rebuilding the Royal Navy are not equivalent strategic priorities. Burnham appears more comfortable promising immediate benefits than explaining uncomfortable choices. Yet governing is about priorities, not assembling agreeable announcements. It is time to Ask.
Conservatives cannot be complacent. Our own 14 year record, despite many positive things, sadly does include weak productivity, inadequate housebuilding, persistent regional disparities, and Liz Truss. Invoking Thatcher will not solve 2026 any more than invoking Attlee. How Soon Is Now?
A credible Conservative alternative must demonstrate how to generate growth, reform welfare, strengthen defence and improve public services without treating borrowing as limitless. This means policy and detail. Yet Burnham faces exactly the same test. The Budget must establish whether his Government can reconcile competing demands upon the state. How will Britain finance stronger defence, control welfare expenditure while protecting vulnerable people, encourage investment and productivity, and deliver sustainable public services? The Burnham government is so far falling way short of any credible answers. The Prime Minister seems to be following a Please, Please, Please Let Me Get What I Want strategy.
These questions matter far more than nostalgia for the supposedly wonderful Britain of the 1970s.
Eric Morecambe could play the wrong notes and leave audiences in stitches. That was his genius. Yet running the British economy is not a comedy routine.
Burnham may hit some of the right notes and connect with slick comms and appealing presentation. However, the Budget will reveal whether his Government knows what order to play them in and how to pay for the band. Sadly, we have reasons to be highly sceptical. And unlike André Previn, the British taxpayer cannot simply walk off the stage. So Mr Healy please play us a bright, clear and radical tune to take us into 2027 and beyond rather than sounding back to the Panic of the 1970s. Otherwise, and per all my references to Burnham’s beloved Smiths songs, the Prime Minister might look back at his Makerfield win as I Started Something I Couldn’t Finish.