𝓤𝓷𝓲𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓝𝓮𝔀𝓼

Britain used to have political titans in charge, who knew what they believed in. Harold Wilson was driven by a modern socialism of technological advancement and industrial planning, fuelled by a more accessible education system. Margaret Thatcher, a methodist who believed in individuals working hard to improve the lives of themself and their family, was all about free markets and privatisation. Andy Burnham’s speech yesterday was refreshing — a departure from his predecessors who cared more about polling than making meaningful changes which they believed would improve Britain, even if this led to them losing votes.

The Prime Minister outlined Burnhamism yesterday, what he called his “theory of growth”. “It starts by retaking control of the essentials that make a place work or not,” he said. “You’ve got to have that control over the fundamental things that everybody needs. And from there you devolve more power to places to put them in charge and decide their own destiny. And then in doing those things we optimise the conditions for businesses to grow. And make sure we support our people so they are there for our business to employ.”

You may not agree with this — but at least it is a clear plan that includes enacting proper changes.

Another promising development was Mr Burnham’s announcement of a national care service which, if formed correctly, would represent a huge societal advancement, cementing his name in history like Aneurin Bevan.

I was also pleased that he said Brexit has done more harm than good, and the UK needs to improve further its links with the European Union. I happen to personally agree.

However, one part of the speech left me worried.

The Prime Minister announced a new national commission on electoral reform, with Labour contesting the next election with a manifesto commitment to change the voting system “so that everyone’s vote counts and everyone’s voice is heard”.

Mr Burnham said: “We can’t succeed in the eyes of the world if we continue with the levels of political turbulence we have seen in recent times.

“It is always in my mind that I’m the seventh Prime Minister in ten years.

But one of the functions of Britain’s first past the post system is to provide stable governance.

Proportional electoral systems a lot of the time do not result in single-party majorities, resulting in coalitions or minority governments.

Many bemoaned the coalition between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats following the 2010 general election, claiming nobody had voted for it.

Other electoral systems can result in smaller parties having lots of power while attaining a relatively small percentage of the vote, able to extract significant policy concessions by putting themselves in a so-called “kingmaker” position.

This does not chime with the Prime Minister saying: “We will all have failed in our public duties if we carry on as we are and open the door of Number 10 to a divisive government on less than 30% of the vote.”

Yes, it is looking like there will be a hung parliament following the next general election.

But this is a rarer instance under FPTP than it would be under a new way of voting.

Markets desire certainty over all else.

Aside from this, having a constituency MP who is obliged to help you out and represents your interests in Parliament is a great thing.

Mr Burnham has made a massive error, seemingly to boost his popularity with his own party members, and a change would be a disaster.