Andy Burnham has attractive qualities. He seems to be a genuinely likeable fellow, though some of those ex-ministers whom he has just sacked may not be convinced of that. But he gives the impression that he is in politics to reach out to those who need help. If he had a magic wand, he would place it at the service of social generosity. He would make a good Santa Claus. He would like it to be Christmas every day of the year.
Alas, that is the problem. Secretary of State for Santa Claus is not a recognised government post, for obvious reasons. One of the primary purposes of government is to ensure that the economy is in good order. In that vital task, elves and reindeer are not much use. Economics has been described as the dismal science, for a good reason. The potential demands on the public purse are greater - much greater - than the money available. Chancellors, assisted by Prime Ministers, have to learn to say 'no'. If not, the IMF and the bond markets will do it for them. Although Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves always said that they would follow fiscal rules, there was never any enthusiasm. One always felt that they would get out from under, if there was a safe way out. But of course, there was none.
At moments, Andy Burnham has seemed to suggest that he would not be beholden to the bond markets. Inevitably, the markets were listening and someone had a word in his ear. Those markets are not obliged to lend HMG money on attractive terms. Interest rates are high enough as it is. Fiscal laxity is the route to economic sclerosis, and indeed crisis.
In all this, Andy Burnham would be advised to learn from Manchester. Back in the 1970s, under the Wilson and Callaghan governments, there was a likeable Mancunian politician who was also an indisputably serious figure. As Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Joel Barnett often had to say 'no', but always remained affable. The late Reg Prentice, a ministerial colleague before he became wholly disillusioned with the Labour Party, told a couple of good stories about Joel. As Education Secretary, Reg had sent in a paper arguing against a proposed cut. He and Joel met. 'Reg,' said the Chief Secretary: 'this is a terrific paper: best I've seen in this spending round. The idealism is so moving: reminds me why I joined our Party all those years ago. Your arguments are unanswerable - and the answer's no.' On another occasion, Joel said: 'Reg, let's do a deal. If you back me against all the other buggers, I'll back them against you.'
Yet even Joel Barnett's humour and rigour could not prevent a near economic collapse with the IMF sending in the bailiffs. In those years of confiscatory taxation, trade union lawlessness, nationalised industries which were a constant drain on resources: on both sides of politics, it was widely concluded that Britain was ungovernable and that the best available outcome was the orderly management of decline.
That was not to be and there is a simple two-word explanation why such a grim fate was averted: Margaret Thatcher. Despite the monetarists and other economic theorists, she owed much less to their wisdom than to her instincts. Her opponents sometimes accused her of preaching housewife economics. She took that as a compliment. Housewives have to attend to the family budget. Wise ones ensure that there is a balance between income and expenditure. Why should governments not do the same? Indeed, she always bristled whenever someone referred to the government's money. Eyes flashing and finger jabbing, she would insist that the only money governments had came from taxation or borrowing. They tended to be far too profligate with both.
As for the orderly management of decline, she would have regarded talk like that as tantamount to treason. Ungovernable? If spineless men cannot govern properly, they should get out of the way - and make way for someone who can. Thatcherism has entered the vocabulary of politics. As long as British history is studied: as long, indeed, as Britain exists, people will be arguing over it, and her.
Could Burnhamism ever reach such an exalted status? That seems unlikely. In the short run at least, he has one asset which poor Sir Stumbler never enjoyed. Mr Burnham has grasped something about the public mood. Much of the population is feeling fed up. Even before Sir Keir added a new layer of exasperation, people were losing faith in our institutions, most of which - with the blessed exception of the Monarchy - stand lower in prestige than at almost any time in our history. So Andy Burnham would like to cheer everyone up.
There is nothing wrong with that, but terms and conditions must apply. British voters are not fed up because they have turned into a race of self-indulgent curmudgeons. Nor can their mood be cured by mere sentimentality. The country is facing serious problems, which can be summarised in another two-word phrase: nothing works. The government is spending vast sums, yet we often seem to be afflicted with bad schools, failing hospitals and a police force which is not nearly good enough at catching criminals. This country is an island, which ought to make it much easier to control our borders, yet the people-smugglers are still in business. Moreover, despite all this public spending, our armed forces are not nearly strong enough. Under successive governments, we paid ourselves a peace dividend, as if swords would shortly be turned into ploughshares. That has not happened. Apropos ploughshares, in its attacks on farmers and agriculture, this government appears to want them to turn into rust.
Which brings us to another point. One reason why the country is in such a mess is because of the Starmer/Reeves legacy. It was as if they had decided to tax anything and anyone who wanted to create wealth and jobs. But it is now time to address one word, which ought to be dominating political debate: growth.
At present, we are bumping along the bottom: a recent monthly figure showed a 0.1 percent rise. Borrowing is already dangerously high, as is taxation. As John Healey is now Chancellor, we can assume that defence spending will now increase. So where is the money to come from? Andy Burnham has told his colleagues to prepare to make tough decisions. We will see whether that happens.
But there is one decision which ought to be taken, on political, economic and moral grounds. At present there are one million NEETs in this country. In their late teens or early twenties, these youngsters are not in education, employment or training. They are preparing for a life of vegetating on the dole. Welfare at current levels does not only waste money. It wastes people.
That is where any sensible government ought to start. Is this a sensible government? We shall see. There is a difficulty. A large section of Andy Burnham's party would be viscerally opposed to cutting welfare, and they have an alternative: higher taxation on the 'rich'. Let us hope that the new Chancellor will remind his colleagues that no country ever taxed its way to growth.
So what does the new PM think? At present, we have few clues. He has been a combination of charm and opacity. But there was one alarming statement. He has announced his intention of repudiating forty years of neo-liberalism. Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron: Andy Burnham knows better than all of them. It could be that this is no more than a pretentious attempt to conceal vacuity with philosophy, yet if he means it, the country should prepare for trouble, while the IMF starts planning. Forty years ago, Britain had a choice: Thatcherism or Neil Kinnock. Today, Lord Kinnock is still with us, cheering on Mr Burnham. That is an alarming sound. We should all beware the onset of neo-Kinnockism.