Burnham should take the brave pills and call a general election

THE COUNTRY’S DEFENCES are visibly overstretched and unable to defend the realm. The £15bn investment plan to build up our armed forces is unfunded. We do not have enough boats, fighter planes or working tanks. The forces’ numbers are the lowest in my lengthy lifetime and recruitment is getting harder. As a consequence, our strategic influence is being left behind even by the Germans and French, never mind the Poles and Baltic States.

While it was a shock that the Defence Secretary, John Healey, resigned, it should come as no surprise now it is known the prime minister was saying defence was his number one priority but would not fund the investment plan by any more than half the amount at which it was costed.

With the Prime Minister’s duplicity exposed to the full gaze of public scrutiny – and a replacement suddenly parachuted in from Makerfield – he was forced to resign. This gives the likely Labour leader, and hence prime minister, Andrew Burnham, the opportunity to wipe the slate clean and introduce not an EU reset but a Labour reset. And yet the reality is we simply don’t know what he will do.

Burnham never revealed what his plans for the country would be during the Makerfield by-election. He has not revealed anything resembling a strategy, an action plan, a timeline or even a potted manifesto. Instead he has started to make feel-good kumbaya speeches on themes that are a collection of slogans, without taking questions that could reveal the detail.

Open government it is not. A fresh start it is not. A reset it is not. Thus far the pointers being given suggest the EU reset – some would call it an expensive giveaway – will continue as planned, that Labour’s existing target of 1.5m new homes might be increased, even though it already failing badly. Even Starmer’s defeated Chagos Islands deal – paying £35bn to give away the strategic archipelago in the Indian Ocean to Mauritius, an ally of China – is back on the table.

The public finances are in a ruinous state; there is a new defence black hole of £5bn, rising to £15bn if the MoD cannot find the £10bn of savings it has never found before. The welfare budget continues to rise and faces more strain as youth unemployment grows and businesses close down or move abroad. Net Zero continues to haunt our industrial and manufacturing base, pricing it out of both domestic and overseas orders.

Whether we believe Britain is broken matters not. The claim by Starmer that he is leaving it in a better state than when he inherited it is simply laughable.

And yet we do not know what Burnham will do to solve any of these problems. It may be something new, for which he has no mandate, or it may be a Starmer or Reeves policy delivered with softer, cuddlier words. The Labour MPs who wanted him have no idea themselves.

there is no constitutional means for the public to obtain a general election directly

The way to gain a mandate is for Andrew Burnham to lay out his plan and go to the country. So far, that is not his announced intention.

The country needs a general election. It deserves a general election. But it will be solely down to the next Prime Minister whether we have one or not. In truth, we should not have to wait, but the fact remains there is no constitutional means for the public to obtain a general election directly. In the absence of any democratic means to bring one about, the opposition parties – and the public – need to embarrass and shame the new prime minister into having one.

We need and deserve a general election because everywhere we look it is in an almighty mess. The standard democratic way to obtain coherent solutions that might not just turn the country round but, crucially, can command the consent of the public, is for the competing parties to announce what they would and put it to an electoral test. It is not rocket science.

More fundamentally, we need a general election because it cannot be right that the Labour members of Parliament can lose confidence in their leader and our prime minister but then refuse to appoint one of their own number.

They could have chosen a past or present Cabinet member, such as Wes Streeting or Ed Miliband, but they did not. They could have found someone on the back benches who might set course again to deliver their mandate – the programme of government that Keir Starmer offered previously on their behalf.

Labour MPs chose neither option. The reason is obvious. According to the opinion polls and the local elections held only two months ago, the majority of Labour MPs would lose their seats and a new government, formed by one or a combination of parties, would replace them.

No, instead, they decided to go head-hunting for a former parliamentarian who had decided to leave Westminster for a less demanding, less responsible role, with less scrutiny and less accountability – but who understands the optics of how political actions “look” and how the vibe of warm encouraging words makes people “feel”. The hard decisions are not his forte; emotional slop is. Expect lots of emotional slop, and for hard decisions to be avoided where possible.

Labour MPs kicked the can of decision-making up the road, to a politician about whom they know little and who cannot reveal what he plans, because he does not yet know himself.

Labour MPs have no faith in their own abilities

This proposed change of leader told us that not only did the majority of Labour MPs have no confidence in Sir Keir Starmer; it told us they had no confidence in themselves – as the MPs or ministers who had been governing us for these last two years – to provide a replacement.

A more damning indictment of the Labour Party in Westminster cannot be found than one where the admission is that its members have no faith in their own abilities.

If Labour MPs had no confidence in Keir Starmer – and by forcing him out they clearly did not; if they had no confidence in themselves – and by their actions of going outside their number, they did not; then why should the public have any confidence in them to choose who should be their leader and, by that selection, lead the country?

We not only need a general election to reset the direction of travel of our country, we deserve a general election because we should not have to suffer the Labour Party MPs making any more decisions on our behalf.

We should bear in mind that they, under the leadership of Keir Starmer, presented to us a manifesto – a broad platform of policies with much detail provided – and then, in his attempt to deliver that programme, they forced Keir Starmer repeatedly into policy u-turn after policy u-turn.

In the end, Starmer’s government had become unresponsive to him and unbearable for us.

Like the Bismarck, his ship of state could not progress forward in a straight line. Since the Mandelson scandal torpedoed his reputation, his rudder was jammed to port. He was doomed to go only to the left while repeatedly taking a political beating. His sinking was inevitable; the question was merely when and by whom.

With Burnham available, the crew finally mutinied and rushed to board his newly launched yet empty vessel. Burnham cannot say where he is destined because he is literally making it up as he goes along. We know this because Andrew Burnham wanted three months before taking the wheel so he had time to chart his new route.

Why should we accept a leader of our country who does not have a plan for where to go and those selecting him have no idea either but are simply looking for a life raft?

Burnham promises to be different but has no mandate for anything other than what Starmer himself could not make work. Why should we believe Burnham can deliver the undeliverable unless the Labour MPs who so often rebelled against Starmer and Reeves decide to resile from their own past rebellions and, for example, cut – or even freeze – the fast-growing welfare budget and increase defence spending above three per cent in the next year?

Democracy demands there should be a general election

If the Labour MPs will not change their behaviour, how can Burnham achieve different results from Starmer? If they will not change, we must change our MPs to those who offer a programme to which we give our consent. It is called democracy.

Keeping or replacing Starmer should have come about through him calling a general election and asking the people for support. He did not do that because he knew he would be roundly beaten and the Labour Party reduced to a rump. His actions – and those of his MPs – are all about saving the Labour Party from evisceration.

In resigning, Starmer has put the Labour Party before the people choosing what happens next. Democracy demands there should be a general election.

If Burnham decides to deviate with a new programme then it has, as yet, no mandate and Burnham should seek the support of the people. He should do what Starmer refused to do. He should go to the country forthwith.