SerpApi.Org
Everyone is waiting for the “Gotcha!”, the trick question or political trap that will wipe the smug grin off our new cohort of ministers and their self-satisfied new Prime Minister.
It’s a tempting target, after all. Andy Burnham’s first days in office have been defined by cutesy videos of Cabinet ministers’ baby pics and awkward footage of new Cabinet ministers not knowing whether to hug their new boss or make do with a handshake.
We are in uncharted territory. And there is an unmistakable suspicion that we are being set up, manipulated by our new(ish) political masters. So what better revenge than to dig up old, and not-so-old, public commitments by certain new ministers and present them as definite proof that the new boss is the same as the old boss?
Take, for example, Burnham’s refusal – echoed by his new Defence Secretary, Wes Streeting, and his new Chancellor, John Healey (who also happens to be the old defence secretary – do keep up) – to commit to a 3 per cent of GDP target for defence spending as previously demanded by… John Healey.
You will recall that it was Healey’s resignation on this specific point of principle that proved more damaging to Keir Starmer’s premiership than any previous resignation.
A prime minister who publicly and repeatedly professed his determination to defend the realm was holed below the waterline by a defence secretary whose conscience would not allow him to serve while Treasury penny-pinching took such a toll on Britain’s Armed Forces.
And, of course, a change at Number 10 since then has not altered the unstable nature of geopolitics, with continuing tension between the US and Iran, the seemingly endless conflict in Gaza, and Vladimir Putin’s expansionist ambitions in Ukraine.
The funding of Britain’s defence, as a key part of Nato’s strategic infrastructure, is non-negotiable to our allies and – once upon a short time ago – to the Chancellor. But it is far too early to write off Burnham and his government as an exercise in opportunism aimed at betraying our Armed Forces for the chance to occupy Number 10.
It should be noted that while the Prime Minister, Streeting and Healey have not committed to the 3 per cent target of GDP by 2030, neither have they not committed to it. Much to the frustration of observers and an increasingly impatient coterie of critics, ministers are keeping their plans, including their spending plans, very close to their chests.
That this tactic evokes suspicion is hardly surprising: why avoid declaring a public commitment to Healey’s former target unless the plan is to ditch it? If only politics and government finances were so simple.
Burnham has time. Not too much time, of course. In an ideal world he will want to hold a general election before the final, legal cut-off point of August 2029. No prime minister wants to be railroaded into a position where he can’t manoeuvre, as Gordon Brown and John Major were at the end of their premierships.
Does he want to start by announcing, in a drop-feed sort of way, exactly what constraints he intends to impose on the Exchequer? Would a Dance of the Seven Veils, whereby the Budget is slowly and enticingly revealed over a period of months, benefit the Government or indeed the country?
Burnham understands he is in control, at least for now. He is not the victim of external events, yet, and few opportunities to control the narrative will be presented again, not once the reality of government starts to bite.
Burnham’s job between now and the Labour conference in September is to redefine what a Labour government is for and, if he is able, to sprinkle a little of his Makerfield fairy dust over the rest of his party. The first few days of a new administration, even one formed from the same party that formed the last one, is not the time to reveal all.
Consider an unfortunate and inappropriate parallel: Burnham’s predecessor never intended to scrap the two-child benefit cap, and only did so after a threatened rebellion by his ever-unhappy cohort of back benchers. This was because he felt the need to placate them, even if he knew the country couldn’t afford this particular trinket.
It was a fine example of a lack of leadership, of capitulation to populism, of following rather than leading.
The lesson here is not that capitulating to strategically blind parliamentarians is a good idea, but that it is often worth putting off important announcements far beyond the point at which everyone else wants to hear them. That Burnham and Co. have refused to follow the timetable for key announcements set by the media and their opponents is a sign of strength, not weakness.
More from Tom Harris
Burnham has virtually guaranteed that his premiership will end in failure
But they can’t afford to overplay their hand: at some point the Government will have to reveal that the 3 per cent target for defence will be met, and will be met by 2030. Failing that, Healey’s reputation will be, rightly, in tatters, and the Prime Minister’s along with it.
That is why it would be folly to believe that they will fall into such an obvious trap.
