The Times They Are A-Changin’: Andy Says….. 

 

 

“…..I hate the big decisions 

That cause endless revisions in my mind”  

 

 

“….People need hope.” 

 

 

• He will stick with ‘discipline of current fiscal rules’ 

• The aim is for “equivalent living conditions in all parts of Britain” 

• No.10 North would help the regions with three tasks: reform of utilities; reindustrialisation and regeneration of places. 

• 10-year plans to bring down costs of utilities through “greater public control” 

• More emphasis to be given to ‘social value’ when public contracts issued; 

 

“For too long, UK public procurement policy has been based on chasing cut price deals around the world, rather than helping our own British-based suppliers become more stable and competitive.” 

 

• A “complete rethink” in schools, with technical education getting “parity” with university 

• The biggest council housebuilding programme in postwar period;  

 

“No 10 North will oversee the biggest council housebuilding programme since the postwar period. We will use public land, vacant public land to reduce costs”. 

 

• More higher density residential development in towns 

• Reform business rates to help pubs and high streets 

 

• Devolution “backed by the stability that comes from sound public finances … and the discipline of our current fiscal rules”. 

 

• Burnham suggests he would give people a “bit extra now” to help with cost of living;  

 

‘The alternative is a road to endless division and civil unrest, likely delivered by a pub politician, reeking of stale beer and cigarettes, with £5m of unexplained cash, amongst numerous other skeletons?’ 

 

What did the opposition think? 

 

Kemi Badenoch, displaying mystical powers as she spoke ahead  of Burnham, said it was just, and devolution was a way for Westminster politicians to avoid difficult decisions.  

Robert Jenrick from Reform UK said the plans would take too long to implement, and there was mention of cutting welfare spending or immigration. 

Ed Davey, the LibDem leader, was, as usual, more sensible and measured. As he doesn’t possess Kemi’s mystical powers, he waited until after the speech. He was supportive, but sceptical as to whether he could succeed. 

For once Kemi said something right, this is largely conventional Labour solutions. Mercifully, it is old Labour, not reheated Toryism dressed-up as New Labour, all free-markets and private enterprise. 

 

‘Mercifully, it is old Labour, not reheated Toryism dressed-up as New Labour’

 

Since 1979, our economy has been organised around asset owners and privatised essentials, which has left us  overpaying for the basics. Burnham plans to use “public control” to lower those costs, therefore increasing real living standards. Using public control to deliver cheaper essentials to help growth plan, might mean either disciplining private utilities with extraordinary powers or owning them outright. 

Public ownership, is for many of us tainted with failure,   

Most are too young to remember that, when, between 1946-1951, the Attlee’s government nationalised 20% of the economy, and created the NHS, this was a key part of a plan to transform the structure  of the economy. 

Even though we didn’t have any money post-WW2, the assets were bought at a fair price, paid for in government bonds, which delivered a relatively trouble-free nationalisation programme.  

Instead, what the majority of us remember is the nationalisations of the 1970s, a mix of emergency rescues, such as Rolls-Royce and British Leyland, or supporting sectors, such as shipbuilding, that were deemed too big to fail. 

As a result, we were told that nationalised industries were inefficient and overstaffed when compared to the private sector. What was conveniently overlooked was the fact that both coal and rail industries rationalised in the 1950s and 1960s, with pits shut, lines closed and jobs lost.  

During the oil-induced recession of 1973-1979, productivity growth in the nationalised industries compared favourably with privately run manufacturing companies with gas, telecoms and airways to the fore. 

 

‘The solution we were told was supply-side neoliberalism’

 

The solution we were told was supply-side neoliberalism. 

One of the results of this is the fact that one in eight workers are now employed by firms funded by private equity. 

One pound in every £11 of UK government spending on contractors went to private equity-controlled companies last year, including key services such as transport, waste management and healthcare. 

Guardian analysis found that C.£24.4bn of public spending on contractors went to companies controlled by a private equity firm in the year to April 2025, 8.8% of government contracts. 

Almost £9.8bn in contracts from local councils went to companies majority-controlled by private equity firms, C.10% of their external spending in the year to April 2025.  

More than £5bn of NHS contracts – 10.7% of its external spending – were paid to private equity-backed firms in the last year. 

Another sector that needs to be brought into line is technology. To date they have sailed under the radar thanks to intense lobbying and tariffs threats from the US president. 

Both have worked.  

When in opposition, Labour were proposing to protect children online, to protect creative copyright and workers whose jobs might be disrupted or displaced by technology.  

“Data held in trust on behalf of the public”, E.G., the NHS, was to be protected not treated as a private asset to benefit Silicon Valley. 

Since assuming power much has changed. 

There are pledges to discount energy costs for datacentres, largely benefiting American multinationals, and tenders for military satellites to a US company for the first time. Instead of protecting sensitive, valuable data, especially in areas such as health and defence, there are contracts with US companies such as Palantir, who has a history of citizen surveillance. 

There is also the assumption that tech delivers growth. If it does, it is the providers that benefit, instead of creating the household prosperity we all need, which is another reason for investment into UK-based tech companies  

 

‘AI is a classic example of the disruptive power of tech, together with benefits for the few’

 

AI is a classic example of the disruptive power of tech, together with benefits for the few. Replacing workers with AI means we lose their taxes, and their spending which serves their community. AI profits will benefit their US owners, who pay little or no taxes here. 

My conclusion is that Burnham laid-out a roadmap to a better future for the majority. As importantly, it was delivered with a positive, can-do attitude. 

Can he deliver? Only time will tell 

The bigger issue is, will he be given time? No.  

 

‘Burnham laid-out a roadmap to a better future for the majority. As importantly, it was delivered with a positive, can-do attitude’

 

Burham’s talk of hope, will be trashed by the right and their media. They will  continue to tell everyone  “it’s all broken”. They should know, they broke it. 

The Daily Mail rushed to provide uneducated criticism for the aged….. 

“Burnham’s speech was a vision of Britain’s past dressed up as the future. He’s taking his party back to the days of Neil Kinnock – and Ed Miliband’s fingerprints are all over his Left-wing prospectus.” 

“Capital Gains Tax plans being looked at by Andy Burnham could cost HM Treasury up to £8billion a year as they would deter investors from selling assets.”  

“Burnham’s wishful thinking: Hitting home-owners with higher taxes won’t boost housebuilding.” 

 

‘People want what Burnham’s proposal can deliver’

 

They would prefer more of the same low taxes, small state that has seen us become a unequal, divided, society. 

People want what Burnham’s proposal can deliver; a secure home and a skilled route into work built on good public infrastructure and local dignity. This will overcome the division. 

The alternative is a road to endless division and civil unrest, likely delivered by a pub politician, reeking of stale beer and cigarettes, with £5m of unexplained cash, amongst numerous other skeletons? 

 

“A change of speed, a change of style 

A change of scene, with no regrets”  

 

“Andy says” quite a lot, much of it I found refreshing if not groundbreaking.

That, perhaps does him a disservice, it’s the first time in 35+ yrs that a leader, or would-be leader, has offered up something that isn’t reheated Thatcherism.

Much of what he said makes sense, and, if delivered, can make a difference for the majority.

The sting in the tail, as always, is “if”. But, better to fail trying than not trying at all.

Within “if” is time. Will he given time?

The early days are crucial. Obviously, the media, which is largely right-wing, will be at their destructive worst. Badenoch will do her bit, but I am not sure that many really listen.

Reform is a strange one. There appear to be two issues: recent by-election setbacks suggest that their support has peaked, not helped by the “anything but Reform” voter coalition. Secondly, Farage has been very quiet, and in a one-person entity, that isn’t helpful. Perhaps, he has 5-million reasons to keep a low-profile.

If Burnham can stay positive, deliver optimism there are reasons to be hopeful  

Lyrically, somewhat off a treat, we open with “Candy Says”, by the Velvet Underground and with “New Dawn Fades”, by Joy Division.

Perhaps there are sunlit uplands after all.

Philip.

 

@coldwarsteve

 

 

Philip Gilbert is a city-based corporate financier, and former investment banker.

Philip is a great believer in meritocracy, and in the belief that if you want something enough you can make it happen. These beliefs were formed in his formative years, of the late 1970s and 80s

Click on the link to see all Brexit Bulletins: