Evaluating the Manchesterism Political Model

Subscribe to The Spectator and get twelve weeks of Britain's most incisive politics coverage, unrivalled books and arts reviews, and so much more. All for just twelve pounds. Not only that, but we'll also send you a twenty pounds Amazon gift card absolutely free. Go to www. spect ator.com forward slash voucher to claim this offer now Hello and welcome to Coffee House Shots, the Spectator's Daily Politics Podcast. I'm Oskra Edmondson and I'm joined today by Michael Simmons and Noah Hoffman. On the day that Andy Burnham finally officially launches his bid to be Prime Minister. I mean MP for Maker Field. But before we get onto that, Michael, which is essentially bad news for the government, there is maybe some good news in terms of fallen migration numbers. Can you take us through? Yeah, well, migration numbers are always such a a complicated story So I will try my best to simplify them. But what we had was yesterday a release from the ONS on net migration for last year. And what they found is that against kind of what had been forecast, net migration, so the difference between people coming to the UK and leaving the UK halved in a year down to a hundred and seventy one thousand per year. So that's down quite a lot from the peak of the Boris Wave. And people like Shabana Mahmud have been saying look this is a um a kind of a big success for us. Now there's there's a couple of interesting points to make here. Um I think firstly, you know, if if you want to get migration down, as Shavana does, clearly it is a success. But um as to how much of a success can actually be given to this current home secretary, I think is, questionable . I mean, I think most migration experts would say that this is actually as a result of the the tightening up to visa conditions that the Tories implemented in their dying days in power. But the other angle here is is emigration, people leaving the country. And opponents of Labour, opponents of the home secretary have been saying that, oh look, this is like this is actually a British brain drain, it's loads of Brits leaving. And actually that's not quite the case either. Because whilst over two hundred thousand um Brits did leave last year, the ONS says that actually this is not an increase. This is kind of the standard amount that we see every year. So what's gone on then? Well what's happened is non EU migrants have been leaving in big numbers. So what we're effectively seeing is the reversal of of the Boris wave. And and that makes sense if you think of kind of pent up demand, say, for student travel, etc., that didn't happen during COVID. They all came in a big wave, and those people are going away. What is true on the Brits points, though, even though the number of Brits leav ing has not really increased. The ONS said something really interesting, which is that the numbers that go go abroad for university or to do temporary work abroad and then stay there is increasing. So we're not seeing more young Brits necessarily leave. But those Brits that do leave seem to be tending not to come back. Noah, I mean I noticed on Coffee House that you wrote a piece titled something to the effect of how Labour MPs aren't really celebrating these migration numbers. Can you tell us why? Yeah, so I un understand that a lot of people are still frustrated that there is a net migration surplus in and of itself. But this is good news for Labor. You know, the figures are on the way down. They're on the trajectory that the country wants to see, even if some people would like it to be a bit faster. So you would think that even though a lot of the reasons why net migration figures are down go back to policies implemented under the conservatives, Labour would nonetheless try and take credit because a lot of the public don't have time for the nuance of whose policies led to what consequences. However, this just did not happen. You only had a very select few cabinet ministers and a select few MPs trumpeting these figures. So the sort of usual Labour MPs who are very, shall we say, sound on the matter of migration and understand that the public want figures to come down. People like Mike Tapp, who's a home office minister, Shabana Mahmood, obviously trumpeting this achievement, and Keir Starmer did speak about it as well. But a lot of back bench Labour MPs just didn't even mention it. And these people would be the first out the bat to hail any change to say increasing benefits, you know, the introduction of the two child benefit cap being scrapped, policies on the environment, for instance, they will be wasting no time. Cost of living measures, say yesterday, Rachel Reeves announcing VAT cuts to hospitality and to um attractions for kids over the summer. But on migration, you're met very often with silence. And that is because despite the country wanting figures to come down, they are so ideologically opposed to this or they find it unpalatable to be able to celebrate the idea of net migration figures coming down. And what you saw yesterday was just a sort of complete shying away from it. It looks like a lot of the Labour MPs don't want this credit. And I think where that's going to be particularly interesting is in the Makefield by-election, because Andy Burnham is representing a constituency where one of the top issues on the agenda for locals there is immigration. Now, a lot of the Labour MPs who are backing him to topple Keir Starmer are more of the left-wing persuasion when it comes to this issue, and particularly are in many cases disgusted by Shabana Mahmood's plans to lengthen the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain, and particularly to apply that to people who came in under the Boris wave. So if reform, you know, was trying to be strategic, should really be exploited by the party because it is very disingenuous for Andy Burnham to say one thing to his constituents and another thing to the PLP. I would just just add a quick point on the on the technicalities of the numbers as well. I find myself um chewing the fat last night with a senior home office official. And I, you know, I said to them, a lot of the projections are that we'll actually we'll hit um net zero migration this year. You know, when you would you can kind of take your foot off the gas. And actually , they're apparently very worried that even after you have um the reversal of the Boris wave, you would still have standard levels of kind of basic migration in the tens of thousands. And they're not really sure how to deal with that and they don't agree with these forecasts that it's gonna go down to zero and turn negative which was is surprising because every other migration expert seems to think that's going to happen but um certainly the personal chant in the home off That's interesting as well. And so one more point I'd make is that instead of hailing the fact that net migration is coming down and, you know, reposting the labor graphics to advertise this achievement. A lot of labor MPs are actually going to use the figures to argue for whoever comes in next, whether that's Andy Burnham, whether it's Ed Millerband, who knows at this stage , but increasingly looking likely likely to be Andy Burnham. They are going to use falling net migration figures to argue for Shabana Mahmood's ILR reforms to be ditched. They're going to say, look, the numbers are coming down anyway. We don't need to change the rules on settlement for people who came under the Boris wave. So the point of what I'm trying to say is Labour MPs, many of them, but not by no means all, are living in a different real ity to a lot of the country on this issue. No, no, I I think you're totally right. And I think that speaks to a broader frustration from a lot of Labour MPs that Labour High Command really do struggle to take hold and lay claim to a lot of the positive stories that they do have to talk about. But let's switch to our Andy, who is speaking at the moment, his official campaign launch. Noah, have we got a sense of what kind of Andy Burnham we're going to get this time round? Andy Burnham is being very quiet about what specific policies and what version of himself will end up in Downing Stre But I I think I'm right in saying he's he's he has said that he'd stick with Shabana Mahmood as as home secretary or has made some kind of suggestion about that. Yes, so his team are briefing that he will stick to these reforms. However, if we look at his history, I think it would be unwise to tr ust and take at 100% vet uh face value all the promises made on the campaign. But I mean we could be proven wrong. What he has said is that he will stick to Rachel Reeves's fiscal rules. So previously, Andy Burnham said that he can ignore the bond markets um and that he can just borrow to his heart's content. Now clearly he's realized that that is not how the economics works and has now said we will stick to Rachel Reeves's fiscal rules, which means if he does win that, the public should expect a series of tax rises. Now I'd imagine and his team are briefing that said tax rises will not be the magic three that Labour promised not to touch during the general election. So that's VAT, income tax, and national insurance. But there will be a raft of other measures and policy levers used to raise tax in other areas, capital gains, for instance. Beyond that, and beyond saying he's not too sure what his views are on North Sea drilling, we really just don't know too much. There will be likely a big agenda of nationalis ation of utilities, but he's again not been entirely clear which utilities in his parliament will come under um state control . And yeah, he's just not being specific on a lot of policies, but what he has said at this campaign launch that is just crazy to anyone watching is that this by-election is one of change. If you vote for me, I'm going to change everything about the past 40 years, including everything about who is currently occupying number 10. Now, in the audience of this by-election launch, is the chief whip. So what you've got here is a guy saying, I think the government is crap. I want to change it. I want to be more radical. I want to move away from establishment politics and be a a sort of left-leaning populist. He's saying that being flanked by the chief whip, basically, you know, really slagging off the prime minister, who he is trying to overtake. And he's saying all this amid a middle sea of posters saying vote Labour. Now, Labour are just ignoring this absolutely insane spectacle and acting as if it's completely normal. And I just think that is such a bonk ers sight that this is all happening and it's just very strange. Yeah, well it's a I mean the dilemma for Andy Burnham is that he he probably can't stray too far away from the twenty twenty four manifesto, but it is quite funny that he's decided to to lean so heavily on the word change. Um he says he won't, but I you can't really rule it out because if you're coming into this by election on a promise to rip up the rule book and to do things differently , you're gonna have to implement some radical policies in order to do that. And that's what the PLP who are pushing him to take over Sir Keir Star mer, that's what they're demanding. Hm. Well Michael, Noah says there that um Andy Burnham has committed to not straying from Rachel Reeves's fiscal rules, but he might well stray from Rachel Reeves herself. A lot of suggestions that Ed Miliband could well be the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Andy Burnham does have a successful bid for number ten. Firstly, your reaction to that. And secondly, you wrote a very interesting newsletter on what actually Manchesterism is and whether it is in fact just hot air. It doesn't matter who the Chancellor is, honestly. I mean like okay, Ed Miliban's like a a scary fault because of his net zero zealotry, but I've we've never seen a more powerless Chancellor in in recent memory because one, um, you know, the fiscal rules, the bond markets, etcetera, etc., etc., means that we're not going to see this kind of borrowing spree. They want to keep constraining themselves on the big free taxes, as Noah's outlined there and i i if not not that they that anyone would but if they wanted to go in a more centre right direction the Labour's backbenches are not going to let them. So I I I don't think the markets actually really care who the Chancellor is, but it's more about, you know, are they going to expand um uh expand borrowing which clearly there's no room for them to do. On the Manchester point, this is a this is a piece I wrote last week where when I look at Andy Burnham, I don't see someone from Oasis. I see Nicholas Sturgeon . Um and having lived having lived under her her yoke for a lot of my my life, I just think Burnham is gonna sturgify England. And what I mean by that is he's not really gonna deliver anything because of some of these restraints. Major change that he wants. It's not possible. Yeah, he might still find be like very popular with the voters because you know he's like the mums like him, he's one of the guys, he seems like relatively normal. When mistakes are made, um he'll do like these really sincere apologies. So something that Sturgeon was very good at. She apologized all the time and everyone seemed to believe it. But when you looked at the numbers behind Nicholas Sturgeon, the actual evidence of well, you know, what she'd done to the the country. I mean many would argue she went backwards. Her big thing was she wanted to be judged on education and despite all her popularity until she obviously became very unpopular but through the years of her staggering popularity, educational outcomes were getting worse, the attainment gap was getting worse. And I think you can make the same kind of claims about Manchesterism, which is you know Burnham's judge me on education, his is the the the Manchester growth story. And sure, Manch ester is doing relatively well compared to a lot of not doing well places in Britain. But um I think if you look at the the numbers, a lot of it is quite questionable, um, you know, dodgy ONS statistics and and where there has been growth and where there has been building in Manchester, it's about a lot of things that were kind of set in motion before he was mayor or b or things that were done down here and and Manchester has reaped the rewards of. And I think more will come out about that actually in the coming weeks. So I think if the assumption is correct that Burnham does become the next Prime Minister, he will be the most vibes-based um prime minister we've ever had where the evidence um beneath it perhaps won't support it. It is worth mentioning amid a lot of uncertainty about what Burnham is going to do versus the hints that his team are dropping out through briefings . He is just a world apart from Keir Starmer in being a normal human being. He's not normal. He's he's normal relative to Starmer, which you know Yeah, but that's what people are comparing A serial killer would be normal compared to Starmer. I I just I just think he's been such a chameleon from, you know, his Blair Wright PFI roots to Mr. Cool, man of the People. I' dont understand why people. If we're taking policy out of it and we're just looking at the way he interacts with the public and just the way that he delivers speeches and and appears on the doorstep. I personally think compared with Sama , it is such a refreshing image. That's if we take all the policy and the shape shifting out of it. And I do think that goes a long way in politics. Yep. Well, I mean, he said he'd scrap VAR. I bet he would have taken Maguire to the World Cup as well, so maybe vibes are for the win. Thank you, Michael, and thank you, Noah. But a quick public service announcement before you all go, the spectator is hiring. If you would like to join our broadcast team, we have a job advert up for a broadcast