As the Starmerites retreated to their North London redoubt of The Pineapple – which, I note as someone who used to call it his local, is a truly fantastic pub – the first signs of a Labour civil war began to take shape.
Burnham’s Northern Red Guard stormed into Number 10, and began the expulsion of the politically impure. Within hours, much of Starmer’s Cabinet had been exiled to the backbenches, where they will no doubt be forced to learn and digest the complexities of Manchesterism whilst wolfing down their chips and gravy.
Those who wish to represent the party on the national airwaves will be made to wear a tokenistic blazer and jeans, emblazoned with the slogan: ‘荣耀归于伯纳姆 – Glory to Burnham’.
A political clean out of this magnitude was always a risky bet. But it is one which is made worse given that much of Burnham’s platform rested on the fact that he sought to put an end to factionalism. Speaking just days ago, he made the claim that “factionalism has bedeviled” the Labour Party, and that he would end it for good. Yet, ejecting so many of those who had served Starmer has done quite the opposite. Whilst one must concede that he has retained a number of individuals – the most notable being Yvette Cooper – the removal of 12 Cabinet members is still significant nonetheless.
Of course, sacking anyone who sits in the Cabinet will cause upset – but Burnham’s actions have seemingly spurred a group of Starmer loyalists into action. The sleeping dogs of the Cabinet who really didn’t amount to much during their time in office have begun to fight back. Whilst the cracks of this were beginning to show on Monday evening, it was not until Tuesday morning when the first fracture occurred.
The fracture came when Britain’s knock-off Mao Zedong (no, not John McDonnell) announced his government’s first formal policy – to cut VAT on household electricity bills. A seemingly worthwhile endeavour on the surface, one would think. After all, using your first real policy announcement to provide support for those facing the Cost of Living Crisis is a move which signals, at the very minimum, that you care. That you are actually listening to the electorate’s concerns, rather than subscribing to ‘government via focus group.’
The move is set to be funded through the scrapping of the Digital ID scheme – a flagship policy of the previous administration, it should be noted. Whilst the scheme had not yet come into effect, the government alleges that ditching the scheme will free up roughly £1.8bn in cash.
It seemed like a shaky defence at first glance. Eyebrows were raised at how a scheme that had not yet been implemented could somehow be scrapped to save money.
But perhaps the Westminster commentariat had misunderstood. Maybe, in the wisdom imposed upon him by Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, he was right and we were all wrong.
But he wasn’t right. Just a few hours later, Darren Jones, the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster took to X to put the questions to rest.
In his rally against the new order, Jones wrote:
“Good news that VAT will be cut on electricity bills. It’s a simple way for families to save a few quid, and to mechanically help to keep inflation that little bit lower.
But the DigitalID program was unfunded.
The government will have to set out how it will pay for its new policies at the budget.”
It would appear, therefore, that Burnham has already fallen victim to one of the seven deadly political sins: unfunded spending commitments – and opposition parties smelt blood in the water.
Kemi Badenoch took to X to voice her concerns, arguing that the “question is how will Burnham fund all his new policies without putting up taxes or borrowing even more” going on to say that the explanations which have been provided are “falling apart.” “You can’t use the funding from an unfunded program to pay for cheaper bills” she concluded.
Even Ed Davey, the bumbling centrist dad who spends more time kayaking than he does coming up with serious policy, claimed that it wasn’t the “best way to help people with energy bills” and that it was nothing more than a “headline grabbing announcement.”
With such opposition mounting, it is hardly a reassuring start to Burnham’s premiership. Many of the fears that engulfed the King of the North prior to his accession centred around his economic policies, and his claim that Britain was “in hock to the bond markets” only worsened the situation.
But he sought to alleviate these anxieties through the appointment of Healey as Chancellor. A compromise candidate that reassured the markets, Healey reiterated that both he and Burnham would remain committed to the fiscal rules – despite some utterings that the new PM would look to find some type of flexibility.
Such reassurances appear to have fallen flat on their face, however. Markets care little for who inhabits No. 11 if one and one don’t make two or, in this particular case, 1.8 billion.
And so, as the few remaining Starmerites retreat and regroup in their North London townhouses, Burnham’s government has already dipped its toe into the pool of political instability. Not only has his purge effectively created an emboldened faction of Starmer-loyalists who will lap up any opportunity to criticise him and his team, but he has begun his premiership with an unfunded policy proposal. Start as you mean to go on, as they say.
It is a remarkably weak position to be in. Having enjoyed the backing of close to the entirety of the PLP, Burnham appears to have fallen at the first hurdle after entering Number 10. To justify these types of actions – these ideological purges and unfunded commitments – one requires some type of Great Leap Forward. Some end goal that brings everyone up alongside you.
But Burnham, rather remarkably I should add, has done exactly the opposite. Having been in the post for just a few days, he has offered up a Great Leap Backwards. It is hardly reassuring for a man who is so eager to bring hope back to our politics.
Instead of unity – he has offered division. The Starmerites already seem displeased. Perhaps Jones’ comment was out of spite more than anything else (he had, after all, lost his job – and he didn’t look too happy when I bumped into him in Pret). But what it revealed was that senior figures from that wing of the party are unhappy. Burnham has effectively sought to cleanse them, and at least one of them seems insistent on pushing back.
Burnham will face far more of these challenges as he progresses into his premiership. As he attempts to wrangle through welfare reform, his backbenchers will seek to push back at every opportunity. As he seeks to prioritise defence spending, his backbenchers will challenge him then too.
No matter what path he takes, Burnham must now seek to appease all factions within the PLP. He has already angered the Starmerites with his actions over recent days, and if this trend continues, then civil war looms over the Labour Party.