The return of the political professional

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

They’re back. Don’t let the easy northern charm or the jacket and T-shirt fool you. Andy Burnham’s rise to the premiership signals the return of the political professional.

This is, after all, a man who has spent all but three of his 35 working years in politics, climbing from a youthful aide, a trajectory similar to David Cameron’s or George Osborne’s except that neither of them joined the Transport and General Workers’ Union along the way.

Watching his speech in Downing Street reminded me of Cameron’s leadership-winning performance without notes to the Tory conference. Contrast Burnham’s ease and the confidence in his own instincts with the stilted, scripted utterances of Sir Keir Starmer or Theresa May. 

To be clear, this is no bad thing. Natural talent is vital but top-level politics also demands skills that you hone over years. After a decade of second-raters (May), comedy dilettantes (Boris Johnson), novices (Rishi Sunak and the bizarrely apolitical Starmer) and Liz Truss, it is refreshing to see a leader who can articulate a cogent political argument. And Burnham is enough of a pro to embrace informal new communication styles.

Some will lament the return of the type, the much-maligned special adviser, which they say has failed the country for so long. Those on the right consistently argue for more people who have done “a proper job” — is there a list of approved professions? Burnham knows the lure of this argument, hence the emphasis on his own redemption story, leaving Westminster (boo, hiss) to work for “real” people as Manchester mayor. Critics are not wrong to wish for more business experience. But lasting change is more likely to be driven by someone who understands the business of politics. You set a thief to catch a thief.

And it is not just Burnham. His chief of staff, James Purnell, is also a former special adviser and cabinet minister. His right-hand woman, Louise Haigh, is a proven political organiser. The new chancellor John Healey’s first job was on Parliament’s The House magazine and he boasts almost three decades as an MP, 11 as a minister. Lucy Powell, the deputy leader, is another political lifer. As much as the fabled northern takeover, this is the discreet return of the political class.

Political professionalism is not just about communications, though its importance is often bafflingly dismissed. It is also about having a clear theory of politics and a project. Burnham and his team have both, though we have yet to see the detail. His narrative springs from a central thesis: power must shift from an unaccountable centre that is overmighty and underperforming. This is the spine of all his ambitions. From potholes to flood defences to high energy bills, the answer lies in his version of “taking back control”.  

The political operator in him knows the importance of a consistent narrative and defining first moves. Hence this week’s dribble of cost of living measures, all small in themselves, flooding the zone with positive first impressions of a leader attuned to public concerns.

Not that professionalism stalks every corridor. Burnham is still too prone to winging it; in his own words, to bringing back policy “ideas from Greggs”. His rapid row back from the declaration that he wanted to raise the income tax threshold is a reminder that the days of thinking out loud are over. 

None of this is a guarantee of success but one look at the past decade — notably Starmer’s disdain for the business of politics — should be enough to see its absence is a recipe for failure. Professionalism cannot protect you if your big idea is flawed. Johnson, whose vibey mayoral style is likened to Burnham’s, also had a central idea but it could not save him from events, his own failings or the gaping holes in his project. 

Burnham has yet to articulate a near-term growth strategy. More worrying is his almost touching faith in the state. It is one thing to believe in an active government but local councils can be every bit as incompetent and unaccountable as Westminster. And Burnham cannot please all those who have been persuaded he is on their side. Someone has to be let down. His speech on becoming leader was a masterpiece of messaging. Talk of a party that is “distinctively Labour”, no longer “wearing too many Tory clothes” delighted the faithful.

But is he sure Britain wants “a return of the Labour they once knew?” And which Labour is that? We know he doesn’t mean Tony Blair’s. Harold Wilson’s or James Callaghan’s? Neil Kinnock’s or Ed Miliband’s? The ones voters got rid of at the first opportunity or the ones they knew not to elect in the first place? If he means all this, then he faces disappointing an electorate that voted Labour on the understanding that it was not those versions of the party. His Manchester was built in partnership with the private sector but business is already nervous about an even more pro-regulation and high-taxing Labour Party whose instinct is always to look to the state.

This may just be the political pro already triangulating, buying goodwill from his party before he disappoints it on welfare cuts, immigration and economic trade-offs. Or he may end up trying to please all, a more polished Starmer splitting the difference on conflicting priorities and satisfying no one. 

The need for a talented political professional has seldom been greater. The route to satisfying enough people does exist but it is decidedly narrow. And Burnham’s rhetoric betrays a recognition that this is probably the last chance for his breed and his type of politics. Otherwise it is back to amateur hour.

[email protected]