Andy Burnham used his first appearance in the House of Commons as prime minister to argue that Britain’s weak economic performance over the past decade stems from “wrong turns” taken over the last 40 years, singling out Brexit and former prime minister Margaret Thatcher.

Speaking around six weeks after taking office, Burnham told MPs he wanted to build “substantial change” and restore optimism, saying the country was “not where any of us would wish it to be” and that “things are not working as they should”.

Brexit Hit Shown In Company Data

Economists’ analysis of internal Bank of England data on thousands of UK firms found the economy took a 6% hit from the effects of Brexit following the referendum a decade ago.

Burnham, whose Makerfield constituency voted for Brexit, said the leave decision reflected a chain of earlier policy failures that began in the 1980s and were later compounded by leaving the EU. He also reiterated that he believed rerunning the referendum would be a mistake, while saying he wanted Britain to rejoin in his lifetime.

He suggested the next UK–EU reset summit could take place in November.

Government Priorities for Cost, Communities And Control

As Keir Starmer stepped down as an MP shortly before Burnham’s Commons address, prompting a byelection in a seat where the Greens are expected to do well, the prime minister set out plans his cabinet was briefed on earlier this week.

He said the government’s priorities were cutting the costs of essentials such as childcare and mortgages, regenerating communities, and increasing public control over water, housing and energy.

Burnham’s deputy, Louise Haigh, will lead task forces on each of the areas, according to reporting, and the ministers had been told they must be “relentless” in delivering the priorities.

The proposals are set against a difficult economic outlook. The chancellor’s “headroom” against Labour’s fiscal rules could be cut by about half at his first budget if a current global bond sell-off continues, economists have warned. Mortgage rates could also rise this autumn.

Defence, Water Renationalisation And Electoral Reform

In the Commons, Burnham also made a series of signals on policy.

He hinted the government would commit to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030, saying he appointed John Healey as chancellor because of his stance on military spending.

On water, Burnham said he is looking at “all possible solutions” and said the sector is a “leaking monument” to the failures of privatisation, leaving open the prospect of renationalisation.

He also indicated Labour could revisit electoral reform in its next manifesto. Burnham said there would need to be a mandate and that achieving a consensus would be necessary for any change to be implemented in the following parliament.

Cop31 Trip And A Pragmatic Energy Approach

Burnham said he will attend the Cop31 climate summit in Turkey and continue pursuing green energy, while arguing he would be “pragmatic” on energy supply. He said it would be wrong to frame policy as choosing between options for political purposes, saying the UK would need “both”.

The speech was made while he was flanked by Healey and Haigh, and Burnham linked his argument to earlier changes in power and industry, saying political authority had been centralised, economic power privatised, and the country de-industrialised, before austerity hollowed out councils.

He said honesty about what went wrong was a starting point for change and added that his government would be “relentless” in delivering the “ownership and control” it had promised.

Join the discussion?

2 September 2026

View full article

Oh dear Andy' your car crash is Unservivable the wooden man of the north flopped' as predicted

6 weeks to come up with it was Thatcher' that forked us.

Just another plonker on a long, very long list of plonkers.

Bottom line:

The headline is factually fair as a description of what Burnham said. But if it's presented as “economists have proven Thatcher + Brexit caused Britain's current weakness,” that's too simplistic. Burnham is making a political/economic interpretation of a much more complicated 40-year history.

Burnham identified a sequence:

1980s onward: political power became more centralized. ✅

Privatization: economic power was transferred into private hands. ✅

Deindustrialization: traditional industrial communities were weakened. ✅

Austerity after 2010: local councils were weakened further. ✅

Brexit: he said it compounded the damage and ushered in a decade of low growth and stalled regeneration. ✅

Step by step slog into weak economy.

Y'all only have one city: London.

Who wants to move to Manchester?

The people with below average grades in school. 😄

The strongest London pull tends to be among high-achieving graduates and people pursuing careers in sectors heavily concentrated in London—finance, investment banking, certain professional services, media, politics, etc. Research on Manchester specifically found that the London migration was particularly pronounced among graduates with top degrees

Still no mention of the sky high welfare.

An early snap election is being predicted before the data goes south

Notice how he completely glosses over entirely the train-wreck damage and fiasco New Labour caused during 13 years of insidious rule from the late 1990s to 2010.

There all a shower of sht but New Labour are as bad if not worse than the tory lot.

45 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

Still no mention of the sky high welfare.

An early snap election is being predicted before the data goes south

The Bloke quite explicitly told everyone why sky high welfare is needed.

Thatcher + Brexit= Stagnation.

Are you bad at math? 😀

1 hour ago, SiSePuede419 said:

The strongest London pull tends to be among high-achieving graduates and people pursuing careers in sectors heavily concentrated in London—finance, investment banking, certain professional services, media, politics, etc.

Yes, it's collectively called filling one's boots. And when their smart fridge or EV goes on the fritz, they expect a tech to pop down from Preston.

Edited yesterday at 12:10 AM1 day by NanLaew

47 minutes ago, FriendlyHorse said:

Notice how he completely glosses over entirely the train-wreck damage and fiasco New Labour caused during 13 years of insidious rule from the late 1990s to 2010.

There all a shower of sht but New Labour are as bad if not worse than the tory lot.

Agreed. That's a glaring omission but he's hardly likely to shoot himself in the foot so early in his tenure. Starmer bowling underarm on the day of Burnham's maiden over shows there's a proper lefty clique that still needs pandering to.

That's the worst looking front bench in UK political history now headed up by Cuprinol man just as wooden as Starmer' tick' tick' tick'🤔

2 hours ago, SiSePuede419 said:

Bottom line:

The headline is factually fair as a description of what Burnham said. But if it's presented as “economists have proven Thatcher + Brexit caused Britain's current weakness,” that's too simplistic. Burnham is making a political/economic interpretation of a much more complicated 40-year history.

Burnham identified a sequence:

1980s onward: political power became more centralized. ✅

Privatization: economic power was transferred into private hands. ✅

Deindustrialization: traditional industrial communities were weakened. ✅

Austerity after 2010: local councils were weakened further. ✅

Brexit: he said it compounded the damage and ushered in a decade of low growth and stalled regeneration. ✅

Step by step slog into weak economy.

Y'all only have one city: London.

Who wants to move to Manchester?

The people with below average grades in school. 😄

The strongest London pull tends to be among high-achieving graduates and people pursuing careers in sectors heavily concentrated in London—finance, investment banking, certain professional services, media, politics, etc. Research on Manchester specifically found that the London migration was particularly pronounced among graduates with top degrees

High achievers migrate to London because that's where the best jobs are concentrated! durghhhh

3 hours ago, Tidal wave said:

Oh dear Andy' your car crash is Unservivable the wooden man of the north flopped' as predicted

6 weeks to come up with it was Thatcher' that forked us.

Privatisation of energy, water and other essentials has been bad for the UK and Europe in general.

Burnham spoke for a long time but said nothing of current interest. Blaming Thatcher and Brexit for current problems was a big mistake and could well backfire come a general election.

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

Privatisation of energy, water and other essentials has been bad for the UK and Europe in general.

But not as bad a Labour' has been even two tier Starmer' has jumped ship🤔

17 minutes ago, Tidal wave said:

But not as bad a Labour' has been even two tier Starmer' has jumped ship🤔

Glad you agree with the reference to Thatcher's privatisation.

And here we go again instead of saying how they are going to fix it they keep blaming the people before them that caused it.... as I said before it's the same dead horse being flogged by a different rider

Did homeownership not skyrocket in the '80s and '90s?

Why do both Labour and the Tories continually raise the spectre of Thatcher. Nobody cares. It was decades ago.

Thatcher sold off state assets cheaply and dramatically reduced the power of the unions. Depending on which side of the political spectrum you reside, you could view either achievement positively or negatively.

But the main point is this was done over 40 years ago.

Poor answer from Burnham focussed on drumming up support from his backbenchers. Then again PMQ's is pure theatre anyway.

7 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

Still no mention of the sky high welfare.

An early snap election is being predicted before the data goes south

Thursday 22nd October is his best election chance before the disasterous budget plunges the country further into decline.

7 hours ago, SiSePuede419 said:

Are you bad at math?

Are you bad at history?

Margaret Thatcher died three years before the 2016 Brexit referendum, so she never took a direct position on Brexit .

There have been many views and conjectures on what she would have done, ie., fight and reform the EU from within versus opposed holding an in-out referendum.

3 hours ago, stevenl said:

Glad you agree with the reference to Thatcher's privatisation.

Absolutely. Allowing renters to buy their homes is a terrible idea. Everyone should live in state owned housing.

In power for six weeks & at his first speech put the blame on the last Prime Minister that actually ran this country. Ten Prime ministers ago & 36 years ago. If that's the best that Burnham can do, then his days are already numbered. Thankfully.

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Did homeownership not skyrocket in the '80s and '90s?

It did as a result of Thatcher's 'right to buy' policy.

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Absolutely. Allowing renters to buy their homes is a terrible idea. Everyone should live in state owned housing.

Home ownership may be positive in many ways and an over-reliance on social housing may have negative consequences but - and it's a big BUT - the manner in which 'right to buy' has been implemented in the UK - with discounts in the selling price of up to 70% of the market value of the property - has resulted in 1) a depletion of social housing as local authorities cannot afford to replenish the stock on a 1-to-1 basis 2) an increase in waitlists (and homelessness) due to this reduced supply 3) a growth in private renters due to former council properties being resold and operated by private landlords and 4) an increase in inflation as a result of 3) i.e. private landlords charging higher rents. This, in turn, contributed to a downturn in economic activity as private renters' have less disposable income.

5 minutes ago, RayC said:

It did as a result of Thatcher's 'right to buy' policy.

Home ownership may be positive in many ways and an over-reliance on social housing may have negative consequences but - and it's a big BUT - the manner in which 'right to buy' has been implemented in the UK - with discounts in the selling price of up to 70% of the market value of the property - has resulted in 1) a depletion of social housing as local authorities cannot afford to replenish the stock on a 1-to-1 basis 2) an increase in waitlists (and homelessness) due to this reduced supply 3) a growth in private renters due to former council properties being resold and operated by private landlords and 4) an increase in inflation as a result of 3) i.e. private landlords charging higher rents. This, in turn, contributed to a downturn in economic activity as private renters' have less disposable income.

That's why I said everyone should live in government housing. Why should only the rich get to own homes?

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

That's why I said everyone should live in government housing. Why should only the rich get to own homes?

Please don't troll. It's neither amusing or clever. It's just annoying and pointless, unless annoying others gives you some sort of perverse pleasure.

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

Please don't troll. It's neither amusing or clever. It's just annoying and pointless, unless annoying others gives you some sort of perverse pleasure.

Just as expected, just more defection from you.

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

Just as expected, just more defection from you.

Please don't troll. It's neither amusing or clever. It's just annoying and pointless, unless annoying others gives you some sort of perverse pleasure.

1 minute ago, RayC said:

Please don't troll. It's neither amusing or clever. It's just annoying and pointless, unless annoying others gives you some sort of perverse pleasure.

Now you're trolling, make up your mind, are you going to troll or deflect?

Do you want more people in government housing or in their own homes?

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Now you're trolling, make up your mind, are you going to troll or deflect?

Do you want more people in government housing or in their own homes?

On the off chance that you are not trolling.

I don't 'want' either private or government housing. lmo social housing should be used as a safety net for those in need or unable to afford private accommodation. And no, I don't know what the correct or optimal proportions might be. However, I don't think that the manner in which 'right to buy' was implemented in the UK has been beneficial overall for the reasons I outlined previously.

You and others may, of course, have a different opinion.

12 minutes ago, RayC said:

On the off chance that you are not trolling.

I don't 'want' either private or government housing. lmo social housing should be used as a safety net for those in need or unable to afford private accommodation. And no, I don't know what the correct or optimal proportions might be. However, I don't think that the manner in which 'right to buy' was implemented in the UK has been beneficial overall for the reasons I outlined previously.

You and others may, of course, have a different opinion.

Reading your previous post, all the problems with the "right to buy" program stem from selling the units at below market value, yes?