With Brexit on the ballot the next election will be box office
Whatever else Andy Burnham’s conference speech achieves, it has certainly opened up some major dividing lines in British politics – and some old wounds. The next election, when it comes, could well have Brexit on the ballot after the PM said he’s open to looking at everything from joining the customs union or entering the single market through to full fat EU membership.
This will be music to the ears of many, I know, but I prefer the Burnham of three months ago, when he said “I’m not proposing that the UK considers rejoining the EU,” and “I respect the decision that was made with the referendum.” For the avoidance of doubt he also said, “the last thing we should do right now is re-run those arguments.
Clearly, when he said “right now” he meant the specific week in which he was selected as Labour’s candidate for a by election in a seat that had voted 65 per cent in favour of leaving the EU. Safely back in Westminster, he’s free to say what he really thinks – which is that we should, in fact, re-run those arguments and consider rejoining the EU. All clear? By the way, Burnham used the word “honest” seven times in his speech. I’ll let you judge whether he really is the “different kind of politician” his admirers claim.
What’s Burnham going to do for three years?
Meanwhile, his assertion that tweaking the triple lock on state pensions would pay for his miraculous new army of home carers has unravelled even quicker than his Brexit position. Of course the sums don’t add up, and of course he’ll have to “be honest” about tax rises ahead of the next election.
Speaking of which, I find myself wondering why on earth he’ll wait for three years. Tuesday’s speech sounded like an opposition leader at an eve-of-poll rally; every promise and idea was contingent on winning the next election. Is he going to spend three years recruiting regional water commissioners?
He says he’ll use the time to seek consensus on his ideas, and here I’m afraid we must concede that the Tories have flunked it. They ought to have agreed that the triple lock needed reform and then argued about how to bank the savings. If they were bold (and honest) they’d have argued that Burnham’s proposals don’t go far enough. Still, the next election – whenever it comes – will be box office.