Stumble No More

Sir Stumbler will stumble no more. But there was an element of dignity in his departure. Some of those who had expected to jeer stayed to pity. He seemed to be trying to evoke a hint of 'I have done some service to the state.'

Yet there is a problem. Othello made his apologia amidst his tragic ruin. As for Keir Starmer, although he may have been aiming for pathos, he only achieved bathos. A basic truth was inescapable. He was a hopeless Prime Minister. Admittedly, he has rivals in the uselessness stakes: both Boris Johnson and Liz Truss are down there at the bottom. But the Stumbler had an opportunity, if only he had been capable of taking it. He had a huge majority and back then, he had a grateful Party. Many Labour MPs, almost unable to believe their luck, were ready to hail the leader who had delivered it. For a season. Then the trouble started.

It might seem a bizarre claim, yet in one crucial respect, Keir Starmer does resemble Boris Johnson. Once they had won power, neither of them was able to use it. Somewhere in the Just William books, William announces that he intends to be King. 'So what will you do when you become King?' asks one of the Outlaws. William has an instant reply: 'I'll rule.' Boris and Keir, the Bumbler and the Stumbler, may have loved the idea of ruling. Neither had any idea how to govern.

There is a reason for this. In neither case was there any coherent set of beliefs. 'Have cake, eat cake' was the nearest Boris ever came to a political philosophy, as if he thought that revelling in his own shallowness was a means of running the country. Sir Keir talked about working people. There is nothing wrong with a Labour Premier expressing sympathy for those who work hard for no great reward. Interestingly enough, one PM who managed to do this was a Tory, John Major. Having been at the bottom of the heap himself, he had wondered how he could ever escape. So he was always convincing when he expressed social generosity and compassion.

But the generosity did not apply to Keir Starmer. When he talked about 'working people' there was always a tone of menace, almost like a Stalinist referring to the bourgeoisie or the kulaks. If you did not fit in with his definition of working people, so much the worse for you.

The first people to discover this were the many working people who were making sacrifices to give their children a decent education and were then clobbered with a tax hike. That was callousness and class-hatred masquerading as an education policy. By levelling that charge against Bridget Phillipson, Kemi Badenoch was being entirely fair, yet alas, this has probably ensured that la Phillipson has made it impossible for Andy Burnham to sack her.

Which brings us to Mr Burnham. Kemi Badenoch declared that beyond the fact that he has two eyebrows and a black T-shirt, and that he is not Keir Starmer, we know almost nothing about Mr Burnham. So what does he believe?

There is one clue to this mystery, and it does not speak well of the incoming Prime Minister. Until recently, Darren Jones and Alan Carns were much the ablest figures on the Labour front bench (Mr Carns resigned over defence spending). As every other senior Labour figure was rushing to the aid of the victor, happy to turn the Burnham succession into a coronation and desperate to curry favours with the new monarch, those two held back. Mr Jones seemed to be considering a leadership challenge; Mr Carns still is. Darren Jones has now come on board, though he hardly announced himself with a fanfare of trumpets.

As for Colonel Alan Carns DSO, OBE, MC - an even more distinguished military record than Major Attlee's - he is still waiting and watching. It is hard to believe that someone with his pedigree could believe that he has a realistic chance of becoming Labour leader: so much the worse for the Labour Party. But he is a man who has proved his courage and who has demonstrated his commitment to patriotism and service. An instinctively purposeful fellow, his current declared purposes are defence spending and the need to protect those who served in Ulster from the travails of lawfare and the weaselly encroachments of shyster lawyers. It also looks as if he is determined to see the colour of Andy Burnham's convictions before he decides whether or not to share purposes. Colonel Carns may still be largely unknown. That is likely to change and change rapidly. He is one of the most interesting figures in current politics.

Mr Burnham is a likeable fellow. He too would enjoy handing out lots of cake. But as every serious Prime Minister has discovered, to govern is to choose. At present, the UK is faced with a number of choices, none of them easy, some of them painful. A surprising number of Mr Burnham's current supporters would like him to make a fundamental choice and opt for socialism. It is not clear what exactly this means, though no doubt Jeremy Corbyn and Ed Miliband could provide guidance. This would presumably involve substantial increases in tax, large-scale nationalisation, ruinously expensive energy prices as the North Sea's assets were abandoned, and no further attempts to restrict immigration.

To summarise, it would mean the destruction of the British economy and with it, the widespread ruination of living standards. Yet even after more than a century in which socialism has been a major cause of premature death among millions of victims, there are still those who believe that it could be made to work. Among them are some characters who believe that they have Andy Burnham's ear, including Miatta Fahnbulleh, the MP for Peckham.

But there appears to be competition for access to the Prime Ministerial eardrum. Jim O'Neill was a senior figure in Goldman Sachs for many years before becoming a Treasury Minister under David Cameron. It is now said that he is advising Mr Burnham. If so, the bond markets can relax. There is also a suggestion that John Healey might be recalled to become Chancellor. If that is true, the bond markets will be joined by the service chiefs, and welfare spending will be in the new administration's sights.

It may be that Mr Burnham's affable self-confidence will lead him to believe that he can send everyone away happy, having told them all what they want to hear. If he is foolish enough to believe that, his reputation will soon be down there with Bumbler's and Stumbler's.

For the country's sake, let us hope otherwise and assume that he will be taking counsel from the Goldman Sachs wing of his possible advisors. This would mean a cut in welfare rolls, partly to pay for increased spending on defence, partly to balance the books - and partly for moral reasons. A million youngsters are now NEETs, not in work, education or training, condemned to dole-fuelled idleness. George Gilder, the American conservative sociologist - he saves that term from becoming an oxymoron - once wrote that the great argument against welfare was not that it wasted money. A society as rich as the States could afford to waste money (unlike the UK). It was the waste of people. Forcing the young unemployed out of welfare is not cruelty. It is kindness.

Large numbers of Labour MPs would disagree. They would not be appeased by a growth strategy which would address the basic problem of energy costs. At present, Britain is leaving its economic future under the North Sea's waters. So are we or are we not serious about growth?

Equally, no country ever grew by putting up taxes. A wise new Premier would admit that taxes are too high, and that as soon as it is safe to do so, he will cut them. That would instantly reassure working people in the proper sense of the word - the alarm-clock classes - and help to revive their animal spirits. That latter phenomenon may be unquantifiable, but it is a vital component of economic growth.

There is another aspect to animal spirits: making people feel good about themselves and their country. Unlike poor old Stumbler, Andy Burnham has the personality to achieve that. But warm fuzzies are not enough. Optimism could only work if it is tempered by realism. In the UK today, realism is essential in order to ensure a path to prosperity. As Margaret Thatcher would have said, there is no alternative.

That brings us to Mr Burnham's own party. In much of its ranks, especially if it had a Thatcherite flavour, realism would only arouse the animal portion of animal spirits. But he has an obvious advantage, which ought to be apparent to all but the most bone-headed Corbynistas. His Party has nowhere else to go.

At the moment, a Burnham government will be a leap in the dark. There is a wide range of possible outcomes and there is also a strong case for concern. This arises from an alarming possibility. It may well be that Mr Burnham himself has no idea how he intends to proceed.

We shall see.