Burnham's 10-year plan morphs into 'high-level' blueprint

Delay deepens doubts within Labour whether PM's vision for UK will be as transformational as billed

When Andy Burnham became prime minister in July, he promised to reveal his 10-year plan by December.

This week he acknowledged the plan's publication might slip into 2027, deepening doubts in his own party and government about whether it will be as transformational as billed.

Government figures close to the process said the plan would run to dozens of pages but would be a "high-level" overview.

Some Labour MPs say that engagement with Number 10 has left them sceptical about its content.

"Colleagues have been left with a sense that there won't be a high degree of specificity or a lot of fixed targets in the plan," said one.

After entering office with lofty rhetoric about ending "40 years of neoliberalism" and "reindustrialising" Britain, Burnham has focused his first months on small-scale policies, calibrated to political signalling, not radical change.

Examples include cost-of-living support and a crackdown on music on public transport. This approach culminated in last month's Budget, notable for its array of small measures.

Burnham insisted this week that the 10-year plan would define his government.

"People are underestimating the significance of this," he told The Economist. "I will lay out my very clear vision for Britain, and it will be substantial, and it will also be . . . compelling".

He stressed it would involve "strong public control" over economic investment as well as the utilities.

His defenders in government point to radical policy on handing control of tax revenues to mayors, laid out at the Budget, as a sign of what to expect.

However, one Whitehall figure said that Burnham's team "haven't grasped the detail or complexity" of what they are trying to do, and still lack answers on key questions about moving power out of Westminster.

One senior MP, close to previous prime minister Sir Keir Starmer, described the delay to the plan as "farcical", arguing: "The excuse for the Budget dodging tough decisions on defence and welfare was that the 10-year plan would be published in November. Now it's not due until next year.

"This was supposed to be Burnham's detailed plan to end 40 years of neoliberalism but it looks like he never had one."

Burnham suggested on Friday that long-awaited welfare reforms would be included in the plan. He said "changes to benefits and eligibility" were needed, but that spending on support for young people would "have to go up".

Internal tussles over whether the plan should have a separate chapter on AI highlight, however, that much remains in flux.

Ministers aim to begin preparing the ground for the plan in the coming weeks by explaining what Burnham means by "public control" of services like energy, housing and transport.

Yet the continued impasse over troubled utility Thames Water has shown the obstacles, including tight public finances.

Burnham has made devolution central to his plans for growth.

However, many mayors have not so far focused on "driving up growth", local government expert Tony Travers told the Treasury select committee this week. "It's going to be a major, major piece of work and capacity building."

Another issue is economic uncertainty. Some government figures are frank that a core plank of the strategy for next year's spending view is waiting to see what happens with the war in Iran. However, the 10-year plan is likely to be finalised before the outlook becomes clear.

Andrew Bailey, the governor of the Bank of England, suggested on Friday that events in Iran would make the difference between repeated rate interest rises or a "different story".

A former cabinet minister said that Burnham faced the difficulty of "the more specific you are, the more you have to say how you will pay for it".

Whether or not the prime minister can credibly set out how to achieve radical change "will show whether this is year three of a Labour government, or year one of a Burnham government," the former minister added.

The plan's 10-year timeframe, equivalent to two full parliamentary terms, has prompted suspicions that Burnham will use it as a springboard for an election in the spring. "It's parliamentary maths," said one Labour MP.

Other MPs oppose an election given that energy and mortgage costs are rising. "There aren't 100 Labour MPs clamouring to lose their seats," said another backbencher.

Even Burnham's critics agree he is a far more skilled politician than Starmer. But his frank communication style means that he has already set out views on EU membership, electoral reform and social care. It's unclear what ideas remain to be disclosed in the plan.

"My worry is that it won't contain much that's actually new," said another government figure.

"We're not hearing many clues about its contents and that's a sign. In politics, if you have brilliant ideas, you tend to be absolutely desperate to talk about them."