Columnist Andrew Neil has voiced strong criticism of Andy Burnham's economic proposals, arguing that they lack practical understanding and are reminiscent of Keir Starmer's approach to economic growth.
In a recent speech in Manchester, Burnham outlined his economic policies for the first time since emerging as a prominent figure in anticipation of a potential prime ministerial role. Neil characterized the speech as surreal, delivered by an individual with limited track record or expertise in economics.
Neil contended that Burnham's plans, which include promoting 'more collaborative politics' and delivering 'good growth in every postcode,' are based on a flawed premise that an over-centralized state, rather than an active business sector, is the primary obstacle to economic prosperity. Burnham's proposed solution centers on devolving power from Whitehall to cities and regions, a strategy Neil dismisses as lacking correlation or causation with economic growth.
Drawing parallels with Scotland and Wales, Neil argued that devolution has not led to economic miracles but rather to poorer-performing public services. He pointed to the UK's worst-performing schools in Wales and the decline of Scottish schools since falling under the control of the Scottish parliament, as well as worse NHS waiting times in both regions despite higher health funding per head. Neil suggested that devolution primarily creates a new political elite detached from the private sector.
Burnham also pledged the 'biggest council house building programme since the post-war years' without detailing how this would be funded. This ambition, Neil noted, echoes the Labour manifesto's pledge for 1.5 million new homes by 2029, a target already deemed difficult to achieve.
The columnist further scrutinized Burnham's call for 'greater public control' of utilities such as water, energy, and transport, suggesting it could signal a return to municipal socialism. Neil also questioned the practicality of Burnham's plan to establish a 'Number 10 North' in Manchester to spearhead reforms, arguing that creating a new government arm far from existing power centers in Whitehall is a recipe for failure and likely to be symbolic rather than effective.
Neil highlighted contradictions in Burnham's speech, particularly the tension between advocating for devolution and aiming for 'equivalent living conditions everywhere.' He suggested that true devolution implies variation in outcomes based on local leadership, which is incompatible with uniformity.
Furthermore, Neil expressed concern that Burnham's prioritization of housing over defense spending could make rearming Britain as challenging as it might be under Keir Starmer. He concluded that Burnham's speech lacked substance on critical economic issues like inflation, growth, the cost of living, taxes, borrowing, and enterprise, leading to fears that Burnham, like Starmer, is ignorant of economics and wealth generation. Neil also noted that Burnham concluded his speech without taking questions from the media.