Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the direction in which I will lead our country. I come before this House, having visited each of the regions and nations of the UK over the last six weeks and Ukraine on the occasion of the 35th anniversary of its independence.
The UK’s steadfast support has helped sustain Ukraine’s resolve over the last four and a half years, particularly so in the last two. That was the achievement of my predecessor and as he stands down from this place, I want to pay tribute to the Right Honourable Member for Holborn and St Pancras. He has given this country a lifetime of public service, Mr Speaker, particularly for those fighting for justice. These were the Prime Minister’s few opening remarks.
Andy Burnham’s first speech in the House of Commons as Prime Minister offered something that has been in short supply in British politics, a sense that disagreement need not mean permanent division. The new Prime Minister arrived in Parliament promising optimism, ambition and “hope”, arguing that Britain could make the next decade better than the last. His diagnosis of the country’s problems was, inevitably, political. He blamed a series of decisions over recent decades, including deindustrialisation, centralisation and Brexit, for contributing to Britain’s weak economic performance. But beneath the familiar political arguments was a more important message an invitation to the Opposition to engage constructively.
Burnham made clear that he does not expect Conservatives, or other opposition parties, to agree with his programme. Nor should they. Opposition is an essential part of parliamentary democracy. A government that faces no challenge is a government that risks becoming complacent. Yet there is a difference between robust scrutiny and endless political warfare. Burnham’s appeal for a more constructive relationship with opposition MPs was therefore welcome. He appeared to be saying that, while parties may disagree profoundly about the means, they can still recognise the same national problems and work together where the public interest demands it.
That approach is particularly important at a time when public confidence in politics is fragile. Voters have grown tired of Westminster’s tendency to turn every issue into another partisan battle. They want politicians to argue, certainly but they also want them to solve problems.
Burnham’s emphasis on devolution, economic renewal, public services and the cost of living gives the Opposition plenty to challenge. His proposals for greater public control of essential services will require close examination, not least over their cost and practical consequences. His optimistic language will also need to be matched by measurable results.
That is where the Opposition can play its part. Kemi Badenoch and her Conservative colleagues should not mistake Burnham’s invitation to cooperate for an invitation to surrender. The strongest response to a new government is not reflexive opposition but effective opposition: scrutinise the legislation, expose weaknesses, offer alternatives and support sensible measures when they deserve support.
Burnham, meanwhile, must demonstrate that his call for a new political culture applies to his own government as much as to his opponents. If he wants Westminster to become less tribal, Downing Street must resist the temptation to treat every criticism as hostility.
His first Commons speech will ultimately be judged not by its rhetoric but by what follows. Hope is a powerful political message, but hope without delivery soon becomes another form of disappointment.
Nevertheless, there was something encouraging in the tone. At a moment when British politics could easily have descended into another cycle of blame and bitterness, Burnham offered a different proposition: compete fiercely, disagree honestly, but remember that Parliament exists to serve the country rather than the parties sitting within it. The Opposition should take him at his word. Britain needs a government willing to listen and an Opposition willing to challenge constructively. That would be a welcome change in Westminster.
19
