In the days before the nomination period for the next Labour leader opens, there is both uncertainty and trepidation. The focus is not on who will be the next prime minister, but on what kind of leader Andy Burnham will be. Bound by the same manifesto and facing the same headwinds as his predecessor, the question is how different he can truly be. It is widely agreed that Burnham has a vision where Keir Starmer did not, but each wing of the Labour party projects its own version of that vision.
Different factions see different Burnhams
Old-school Blairites see Burnham as one of their own, given his background and his appointment of James Purnell as chief of staff. The Labour right takes heart from rumours of Shabana Mahmood as chancellor and Josh Simons' role in the policy team. The soft left bets on Burnham's transformation—via the Hillsborough scandal, the infected blood scandal, and the geographical and economic inequalities of Covid—from a New Labour careerist to a new kind of thinker. It feels churlish to point out, but they cannot all be right.
The meaning of being 'good at politics'
Everyone agrees that Burnham will be better at the politics than Starmer. But what does that mean? It could be that people on the street seem genuinely pleased to see him, or that he landed with a ready-made power base in parliament. It might be his demonstrated ability to cooperate across party lines and manage different factions in his own party. Or it could be that he can give a speech and sound like he means it.
That quality of sincerity is crucial. Every politician strives for it, but we have become desensitised to their efforts. Authenticity is still audible: we feel words are genuinely meant when they sound as if the speaker wrote them themselves, reflecting what they really think. This is not related to ideology. Boris Johnson had it, David Cameron did not; Jeremy Corbyn had it, Keir Starmer did not. Nigel Farage has it, as does Zack Polanski. Authenticity does not necessarily go along with extremism or falsehoods, but equivocation is audible and alienating.
Radicalism and political skill
A politician must either not care about the consequences of their pronouncements or be ready for them—they must be a chancer or a radical. Radicalism means a willingness to think beyond what is currently allowable. It is often impossible to tell if a leader is a charlatan or a radical until their pronouncements are tested. The ability of a prime minister to hold that faith without going into ego-overdrive is another political skill, and it might not be obvious until they have left office and set up their own institute.
Internal party politics and leadership
Then there is the classic politics that happens inside the party. Can a leader tell the difference between MPs who are loyal and those who support them because they are winning? Can they bring along those who openly disagree using better methods than brute authority? Corbyn was bad at this, but Starmer, improbably, turned out to be worse. Can a leader delegate without creating fiefdoms that outgrow their own power? Can they make a decision? Can they withstand unpopularity while remaining receptive to critique?
The grimy, sausage-making aspects of politics—ruthlessness, inconsistency, low cunning, dishonesty—create a contradiction. A leader cannot survive without guile, yet if there is nothing they will not sink to, the possibility of leadership evaporates. Johnson is the best example of this. A leader must do the dirty work but not get dirty.
The promise of a mission
It would be an easy story for Starmer to tell himself that he was undone by his lack of a base nature. The skill of politics has mechanisms and intricacies, can be elegant and can be ugly, and often functions in a way that rationalists find frustrating. But it was the absence of mission that brought Starmer down, and the promise of one that Burnham is making. When we say he is 'good at politics', we cannot know whether he will realise that promise, but at least he knows he is making it.
Burnham benefits from comparison with his predecessor and, one hopes, in time, with the five previous residents of No 10. 'Good at politics' will never make a legacy, but it can make a start.
