One of Andy Burnham’s problems is his occasional pandering towards populism. In an interview with GQ magazine, the Labour leadership contender tries to talk up his credentials as an ordinary bloke and says he doesn’t intend to spend the rest of his life in politics, arguing there should be a limit on how long MPs should remain the Commons:
‘Not necessarily, no. I think modern politics is intense – it’s changed in my 14 years in parliament. I always felt I would give it my all for 20, 25 years. Never put a time limit on it but then maybe finish off my career by doing something different. If you’ve had a seat for 25 years, people should let some new thinking in.’
What motivated Burnham, who has served as an MP since 2001, to say this? It might be seen as an attack on his leadership rival Jeremy Corbyn, who entered Parliament in 1983 and has served over thirty years in the Commons. But as Guido points out, if Burnham wins the leadership and happens to also win the next general election, he would fall foul of his own rule at the 2025 election — just after his first potential term is Prime Minister would be over.
Awkwardly for Burnham, three of the MPs who backed him as leader fall foul his 20-25 year rule: Alan Meale, Clive Betts and Kate Hoey. None of them have responded to a request for comment at the time of writing. But some of long-serving Tories are enjoying the fun of pointing out why Burnham is wrong. Sir Edward Leigh, the Conservative MP for Gainsborough for the last 32 years, points to Winston Churchill as an example of why he believes he is wrong:
‘So Churchill was past it in May 1940 was he — how long had he been in Parliament by then? The best part of 50 years and was life any less intense? Everyone is different. You should stay in Parliament as long as you are committed.’
Sir Nicholas Soames, the Conservative MP for Mid Sussex, who has been in the Commons since 1983 also disagrees with Burnham and is not very impressed by the leadership contenders:
‘I find myself uncharitably full of contempt for Andy Burnham and all those other drips seeking the “leadership” of that gang of losers. It is difficult to take anything much they say seriously.
‘As to older longer serving members: many of them, like well made Claret, improve with age.’
Another Tory grandee Sir Peter Bottomley, who has been in Commons for 40 years, believes there is no reason to step down if MPs can still make a valid contribution:
‘If you are doing enough good, have an interesting time and some fun, and if the issues on which you fail are important to attempt, why volunteer to stop? In my case, I was fortunate to have 22 years representing Woolwich West / Eltham until becoming the first MP for the new seat of Worthing West eighteen years ago. My main predecessor Sir Terence Higgins was as effective after 32 years as he had been at the start. Virginia [Bottomley’s wife who stood down in 2005] decided that 21 years was sufficient for her; she had a commercial life ahead and she was happy to add service to universities.
‘Let us accept that for some, life as MP fits well; for some it is drudgery or too strange an occupation. My fortunes have included easy constituency journeys, a wife who understands the life and the purposes, together with a wider family whose needs have not torn me from the intensity of public and political service.’
Burnham’s remark on 20-25 years as an MP demonstrates a problem that has dogged his leadership campaign. Occasionally, Burnham has put out confusing and inconsistent messages that can be clearly pulled apart by his enemies. For example, he abstained on the Welfare Bill then took to Facebook to say Labour has to do more than just abstain. Such incidents add to the impression that Burnham doesn’t really stand for anything.
Comments