Reader Q&A: Ask Polly Toynbee about Andy Burnham’s first week as prime minister – live
Polly is live
Polly Toynbee is online now answering your questions about Andy Burnham’s first week, electoral reform, symbolism in politics and more.
Key events
Is electoral reform before the next election possible?
Magnesium asks: As Burnham appears to be an advocate for electoral reform, I am wondering if he will be able to bring this about before the next general election. Do you think this is possible?
Polly says:
Burnham has always been a strong supporter of proportional representation: he delighted a rally for it at the last Labour conference with a rousing speech. He has always said it needs to be in the next manifesto. That requires him to set up a national commission to lay out the facts, to persuade voters, already a majority in favour but hardly a high priority. You can rely on the Tories and possibly now Reform, to put up the same dishonest arguments against as they did in the AV and Brexit referendums. Will he invest the political capital in this when so much else is higher up the list of public concerns? One advantage is that it costs nothing, and Lords reform might be a saving.
This would be by far the most lasting legacy, if he can pull it off. If it’s in the manifesto, the right will make it the key electoral issue, a fight to the death for them, never again in power alone. That’s risky. But it must be done. No more empty, loveless landslides on 34% of the vote….
Can Burnham really transform social care?
Hammerhead72 asks: Polly, do you believe there is a genuine and sincere cross party consensus to fix adult social care? Can you see a policy or approach that could actually be agreed upon by all parties? Would it be political suicide for whoever brings forward a serious and workable solution without cross party support?
Polly says:
All my journalistic life I have been writing will-they-won’t-they articles on reforming social care, with dozens of reports, reviews, commissions ending up in the long grass. I am pretty certain Burnham means it to happen this time. As health secretary he had a joint committee with all parties ahead of the election in 2010, but at the last minute Cameron pulled out the Tory members, u-turned and dubbed Burnham’s idea for a universal insurance system paid on retirement a “death tax” – pure cynicism and opportunism. Then in 2017 Labour under Jeremy Corbyn did exactly the same to a similar plan Theresa May put in her manifesto, forcing her to retreat from Labour dubbing it a “dementia tax”. True May’s plan was less good, but Labour didn’t devise one in its place for its manifesto: Corbyn did well in that election.
So it has been regarded as an electoral live rail, not to be touched since then, with promises made by every new PM rapidly dropped. Burnham has never let go of his plan, as he has seen what a disaster the present scheme is, taking up 78% of local authority budgets to provide often bad social care. Louise Casey’s review can be guaranteed to come up with something on the lines of his plan: everyone with assets pays in a lump sum on retirement (or a lien on their property), a sum far below what they might have to pay if they needed care for any length of time. No-one risks losing everything, everyone pays something, an NHS mutuality principle.
Now comes the great question. Can Burnham persuade people this is in everyone’s interest? One in seven families pays £100,000 or more, one in three spend a great deal. This is an insurance against that happening to anyone. Can he sell it on the basis of the grotesque unfairness of the present random system where fate decides who pays ruinous sums? It’s a lottery and too many persuade themselves it will never happen to their family – but it does. This is the real trial of his strength, and his power. He may get Lib Dem and Green backing if he consults with them, but will get nothing but dishonest threats from Farage and Tories. This is his personal trial, something he has always believed in.
Can’t we give Burnham a chance?
Hojipo asks: Can we just agree that Burnham’s not perfect but a damn sight better than anything else we’ve had in the last God knows how many years?
Polly says:
Oh, thanks for something positive! Life on the left is mostly a littany of woe. Over two thirds of my lifetime has been lived under Tory governments, election night after night ending in yet more gloom. Why do they keep doing it, British people! What’s the matter with you all? Then you pick yourself up and try to work out what went wrong, and how to do better next time. So when we get days of hope, make the most of it. Rejoice! No, I’m sure Andy Burnham is not the messiah. I am sure he will disappoint and probably enrage a great many people on his own side because basically, only a party of one, ourselves, is ever going to be totally satisfactory.
Right here, right now, Burnham looks pretty good. Long may it last. But you only have to look at the barrage of bile from the rightwing media to see what he’s up against.
I tell people of the left to always read the Daily Mail once a week, even you have to pick it out of a bin. To those for whom the Guardian or the BBC is the most right wing media they ever see, just keep looking at the real enemy, the billionaire owners who command the airwaves from Musk to Murdoch, to know you have to get behind whoever is best placed to ward them off and keep them out of power.
Will Burnham tackle donations and influence in politics?
Theoldsceptic asks: Can Burnham do more to prevent people like Reform donor Harborne from trying to buy the next election?
Polly says:
I admit I am stumped on this one. It would be so easy for an incoming Labour leader to proclaim their honesty but cleaning up the filth by taking money out of politics. Most MPs are clean, but Farage’s monstrous £5m bonanza contaminates all parliament. A convicted fraudster and a crypto-gambler among Farage’s donors just adds to public scepticism about of Westminster as the big stink. Burnham could set a cap on all but modest political contributions.
What did the crypto billionaire get for his donation? A Reform Uk policy that promises a “cryptoassets and digital finance” bill to cut crypto capital gains tax to 10% and create a Treasury bitcoin reserve fund, allowing taxes be paid in crypto.
Starmer’s weak bill only capped foreign donations at £100,000. Darren Jones defended it unconvincingly, claiming, “We’re cracking down on those trying to buy- and sell- our democracy.” Hardly, when peerages are bought and sold: a £3m donation more or less guarantees ermine. Transparency International found that 66% of private donations in 2023 came from just 19 individuals.
So why not? Why hasn’t Labour done it? It would need the state to fund political parties, which is a highly unpopular in polling. Untrusted politicians would have to persuade people that funding by millionaires is worse than subsidies by taxpayers. There’s a fair way to do it: let voters tick a box on their ballot papers allocating their share of funding to whichever party they choose: that helps new parties.
The other reason is the unions, key Labour funders. These reforms would have to include only allowing individual unjon members to allocate their contributions. It would mean less money – but it would stop union leaders using union funds as a threat The party’s biggest donor, Unite, has voted to cut its national funding by 40% to force Labour to pay up in the Birmingham bin strike. It does Labour’s reputation nothing but harm. But this would wrench at deep union roots, where their money buys seats on Labour’s National Executive Committee and votes at conference. Burnham has said nothing on this one.
Burnham knows how to connect with the public
bobby31: Burnham, unlike Starmer, knows the importance of symbolism in politics. Hence his first decisions to send a signal to tackle the cost of living crisis. Compare his £2 bus fare with the WFA debacle of Starmer. Furthermore he seems to know that opinion is formed as much in pubs and clubs as on MSM or social media, hence his move on the reduction of rates for those establishments.
Polly says:
The wonderment of Burnham’s first week has the rainbow array of pleasing policies showered on us in such a short time, – and more to come all this week. He always had a natural political talent, an instinct for how people think and feel, but right now he has one great advantage. Look at the serial early blunders of Starmer and Reeves and do the opposite. He rightly calls this confetti only a down payment on what is to come. These are small sums – though parliamentarians on the Tory/Reform benches who sniff at £45 off an electricity have no idea what counting every penny at the checkout means. £1 off bus fares looks a lot more if you and teenage children have daily return fares. But above all, yes, it’s the symbolism that matters, a lifting of spirits in contrast to the gloom and doom warning of Starmer’s first days.
Polly is live
Polly Toynbee is online now answering your questions about Andy Burnham’s first week, electoral reform, symbolism in politics and more.
Welcome to the Conversation
Andy Burnham has been prime minister of the UK for a week, during which time he has announced a slew of policies as he makes his start on shaping Labour’s narrative for the next three years in government.
From re-introducing a £2 cap on bus fares in England (and providing funding for the devolved governments to follow suit), via a VAT cut to energy bills, to confirming a 20% cut in business rates for hard-pressed hospitality firms such as small live music venues and pubs, Burnham has attempted to demonstrate that he knows cost of living pressures need to be addressed.
He has also launched No 10 North to spearhead his plans to, as he put it in his article for the Guardian, “accelerate devolution” by “taking power down and placing it in the hands of people who can use it best”. He has also revived the national econonomic council, first set up in response to the 2008 global financial crash, arguing that economic growth requires the same level of urgency, focus and collective action.
Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland in his latest piece wrote that Burnham’s first week as PM, and his tenure as mayor of Greater Manchester, suggest he understands that politics is a retail business, and voters need to see something that is “immediate, tangible and uncomplicated. Everyone understands a lower energy bill or, indeed, a cheaper bus fare”.
The Guardian’s editorial broadly welcomed the announcements so far, noting that “they were cleverly indicative ones, nodding empathetically to people’s need to have the chance to enjoy themselves as well as pay the bills”.
But in his piece yesterday, former senior Labour adviser Tom Baldwin cautioned that, if Burnham was to succeed with his policy agenda, he would still need friends in the fourth estate, noting that “one of his closest advisers in No 10 acknowledges the current good vibes will inevitably fade, and indicates his team are preparing for tougher times ahead”.
Are any of these policy announcements changing your views of Labour? Which aspects have caught your eye? Is he moving in the right direction, in the right areas, and fast enough? Will the change of leader and (some of) the cabinet prove to be enough to fend off Reform UK, and to win back voters from the Greens and elsewhere?
What of the new(ish) cabinet; do Burnham’s appointments of John Healey as chancellor and Ed Miliband as foreign secretary inspire? And will ministers seen as most loyal to Burnham’s predecessor who are now sacked cause problems for him?
Here, Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee answers your questions on the new prime minister’s first seven days in power, and what next lies in wait for him – and us. Post your questions below now.
In the meantime, you can catch up on the latest with the politics live blog.
