2 hours ago
23
There are few things on which this column would agree with George Osborne. Voting to remain in the European Union was one. Backing Labour’s Ed Miliband to be the next chancellor is another.
Mr Osborne, whose austerity programme redistributed pain downwards while protecting privilege at the top, had only a week ago on his podcast, Political Currency, dismissed Mr Miliband as too difficult a sell to business and the press. He now recognises what should have been obvious: if Andy Burnham is serious about governing differently, he needs a chancellor with the authority, knowledge and political relationship with the prime minister to bend the Treasury to the project.
A strong chancellor is a must for Mr Burnham, who arrives after a breakdown in the Starmer government as a midterm prime minister with civil servants wondering whether he is just another temporary leader. The danger is that if officials think that Mr Burnham will soon be gone, then Whitehall slows down, hedges, resists and waits.
Even those, such as Mr Osborne, who disagree with his decisions on climate think that Mr Miliband has been clear in driving his department’s agenda. Putting him into No 11 would signal that Mr Burnham means business. Wes Streeting or Shabana Mahmood might be fresher faces but they are not steeped in the fiscal politics of the Treasury. For a truly radical break, Mr Burnham could turn to Miatta Fahnbulleh, an economist by training and one of the architects of Burnhamism. Her elevation to the Treasury would electrify the body politic.
If Mr Burnham wants real devolution, he needs a chancellor who knows the finance ministry, understands economic strategy and has the political weight to force Whitehall behind an agenda it has often resisted. But devolution is a long game. Building institutions capable of changing lives will take a decade. Pushing power down gives Mr Burnham a plan to transform the economy; a cost of living offer gives him permission to attempt it. Polling by Persuasion UK suggests that without meaningful measures to bring down the costs of essentials, with radical policies such as rent caps, Labour is heading for a heavy defeat at the next election.
Hence Mr Burnham’s chancellor must both ease the cost of living squeeze quickly enough to buy political time, and build the devolved institutions needed for renewal. Mr Miliband is the obvious choice; Mr Osborne joins Labour heavyweights such as Harriet Harman and Ed Balls in recognising that.
The case for Mr Miliband is not merely that he is more progressive than the alternatives. It is that he understands fiscal, industrial and climate policy as well as having the clout to challenge Whitehall’s veto while deftly navigating markets. A government that wants to reshape the country needs a powerful finance minister whose instincts are to repurpose the Treasury, not just reassure it.
Appointing a more centrist figure would suggest that Burnhamism is going to be better marketing for the same policies that failed under Sir Keir Starmer. Unless the chancellor’s job goes to a figure of substance such as Mr Miliband, or a genuinely creative one such as Ms Fahnbulleh, the buzz around Mr Burnham’s arrival in No 10 may fade quickly. If Burnhamism is to mean anything then it has to be more than a northern accent and better TikToks.
-
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
