𝓤𝓷𝓲𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓝𝓮𝔀𝓼

Consumed by his towering ambition and craving for public affection, Andy Burnham has been anticipating his seizure of the Labour crown for years. Yet now the moment of destiny has almost arrived, he seems curiously ill-prepared for the job, showing a vagueness on policy that is matched by his prickliness with journalists. These flaws were evident in the much-hyped speech he gave this week in Manchester, where he talked grandly about “rewiring Britain” and “rebalancing” the economy to achieve “good growth in every postcode”.

But the address was an exercise in wishful thinking, with a series of banal slogans serving as substitute for a coherent plan. As he stood before his adoring audience of the party faithful, from which journalists were excluded, the Municipal Messiah became the Prince of Platitudes, the Fabricator of Fantasies.

He spoke excitedly about the reindustrialisation of Britain, without explaining how this could be achieved when we have among the highest energy prices in the western world thanks to the militant green agenda of his pal Ed Miliband.

Nor did his credulous faith in the public sector – reflected in his promises of renationalisation and a vast council housebuilding programme – show any recognition of how dismally much of the state now performs, weighed down by low productivity, trade union power, and weak management.

But Burnham’s greatest failing is his worship of the decentralisation of power away from London, based on the belief local mayors, assemblies and councils can be better trusted to take decisions about their areas than politicians and civil servants in the capital.

That sounds good in theory, but in practice there’s nothing inherently superior about regional or local government. After all, town halls in the north of England were at the forefront of the grooming gangs’ cover-up, while much of local government is notorious for waste, bureaucracy and over-staffing.

Wales and Scotland, too, have turned out to be citadels of parochial nationalism and sclerotic officialdom though that did not prevent Tony Blair’s Government beginning an experiment in English regional devolution, led by the establishment of consultative local chambers and a £2billion network of “Regional Development Agencies”.

But the public never warmed to either, which they rightly saw as expensive talking shops. When, in 2004, a referendum was held in the north-east to go further and create a powerful elected body in the region, 79% voted against the idea, with just 22% in favour.

As wise north-easterners recognised, decentralisation is no cost-free-panacea. It can mean more taxes, subsidised gesture politics and ideological authoritarianism. That is what happened with Ken Livingstone at the GLC and a host of other revolutionaries in charge of the Labour metropolitan authorities before their abolition in 1986. They weren’t known as the “Loony Left” for nothing.

Amid all his verbiage, Burnham omitted any reference to the concept of an English Parliament which is the only sure way to remedy the injustices created by devolution. Why should the English be denied their own assembly, especially given that English MPs have no say on devolved matters in Scotland and Wales, like healthcare and education, whereas Scottish and Welsh MPs can be involved on the same matters in England?

Gross unfairness is further highlighted by the far greater generosity of London towards Scotland where public spending is £2,500 per head higher than in England.

In the past, Burnham has refused to support an English Parliament, preferring to focus on regional structures. But England does not have strong regional identities. There has always been a justified concern that the progressive establishment and the EU are actually keen to push the regional angle in order to dilute England’s powerful sense of identity, which is stronger today than it has been in centuries. If he really believed in decentralisation, he would welcome this surge.