Burnham’s vow to end Labour briefing wars will test his grip on the party | Labour
Andy Burnham’s vision of cleaning up Westminster politics is a utopian one: ending the dominance of the whip system, the hoarding of power in Whitehall and the “insidious briefing culture” of the bubble.
In his first speech as leader of the Labor Party, he warned his party “will not be able to defeat Britain’s new right if we are consumed by infighting and drifting in different directions”.
Burnham is not wrong in trying to pick apart some of the issues of regional factionalism that have resulted in power struggles in British politics, rather than focusing on where agreement might be found.
But the tension between their aims is already there: ending the culture of briefing between politicians and factions vying for supremacy requires extremely harsh command-and-control discipline and central control of the narrative.
The new leader’s fledgling operation has proven to be no different from any other so far when it comes to ending factionalism. Indeed, Burnham’s supporters were unable to put their candidate over the top without much briefing and organizing to undermine Keir Starmer, despite his claim to be loyal to the outgoing prime minister.
Since then there have been disagreements between the party’s right and soft left; Key players have disagreed over who has the most input into policy, who should get what job, and how policies should proceed, from North Sea drilling to immigration controls.
Ed Miliband, who helped elevate Burnham to the leadership, has been the target of harsh briefings by those who fear he will be too hostile to business and could spook markets if elected as chancellor.
Similarly, a counter-briefing operation was mounted against the alternative choice for chancellor, Shabana Mahmood, by some on the soft left who were keen to portray her as being far to the right of Blue Labor in order to win the party.
Rival ministers also did not hesitate to call journalists and explain why they would be better candidates for the job.
Party deputy leader and potential deputy prime minister Lucy Powell told the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg on Sunday that some of the speculation about whether Miliband will become chancellor was “really quite appalling and uneducational, to be honest” and accused political journalists of stirring up a storm by reporting on the tensions.
He claimed Labor had handled the leadership crisis with “consensus” around Burnham, adding: “I think we have given a really good account of ourselves over the last few weeks.
“And perhaps because political journalists can’t find many topics to write about, they look for other personalities and other conflicts to write about.”
But the implication that news of political disagreements within the party should be suppressed runs counter to Burnham’s desire to make Labor a broad church that can accept different views without the need to withdraw the whip or expel party members.
When a leadership transfer from Starmer to Burnham takes place without a proper contest or major election debate, it is unrealistic to think that all discussions about strategy and big business can be kept behind closed doors with no arguments made public. On welfare changes, immigration controls or public spending, the Labor left and right have very different views.
There may be room to find common ground, but not without voicing disagreements and struggles over who will control these policy areas first.
Burnham may now be very powerful within the Labor Party and idealistic about ending factionalism and informing wars. But he will need to maintain very tight control over his party and government if he thinks he can decide the future of the country without major fights.
