By the time the next edition of this newspaper is published, Britain should have a new Prime Minister and Cabinet in place – without an intervening general election. Now, I’m more than aware that such changes have happened under Governments of both colours without an election, but there is a particularly troublesome angle to the lack of scrutiny surrounding Andy Burnham’s likely succession.
On Wednesday this week, Parliament was due to hold an ‘Opposition Day Debate’. These are sacrosanct debates as they are one of the few tools available for the Official Opposition to genuinely hold the Government to account. In particular, the Opposition get to choose the motion – i.e. the title of the debate.
In recent months, we’ve used such debates to force Keir Starmer’s hand on a number of U-turns. Most notably, our Opposition Day activity in relation to the appointment of Peter Mandelson as US ambassador, played a key role in highlighting the serious issues raised in that scandal – which ultimately paved the way for the outgoing Prime Minister’s resignation.
Another factor in Keir Starmer’s fall from office was surely the resignation of his previous Defence Secretary, John Healey, who famously remarked that the Defence Investment Plan he had been given financial approval for would make Britain ‘less safe’. For many months the Defence Investment Plan was not the subject of conversation outside the world of technically minded defence experts – but I personally used Opposition Day Debates to constantly harangue Ministers for their failure to publish the document.
Such accountability really matters in our Parliamentary democracy; it really has impact.
So it was extremely frustrating and disappointing that on Tuesday, Labour took the unilateral decision to pull our Opposition Day debates, and replace them with a general debate on Iran – which does not involve a vote in Parliament. The important point is that we were due to debate a motion proposing Parliament sit an extra day on Monday, so that the new Prime Minister would have to appear in front of the Commons and take questions from MPs. Surely that kind of scrutiny is appropriate when there has been no leadership debate, let alone a general election?
In essence, Labour broke with convention to cancel a debate that would force extra scrutiny on the new Prime Minister – a double dose of democracy denied.
This sets a troubling precedent. We need to hold Andy Burnham to account because Parliament will now go into recess until early September. To be clear, in that time we continue with our constituency duties, and I myself will have a full constituency Friday, followed by presenting the East Anglian wine awards on Saturday. Nevertheless, that does not substitute for questioning the new leader of our nation.
After all, there are many matters that await Mr Burnham in his in tray, and I am naturally most concerned by those issues that most acutely affect my South Suffolk constituents.
We still have a major challenge with the cost of living. What is Andy Burnham going to do about energy prices? Is he going to borrow more than Starmer planned, not least to fund Defence, thus risking higher mortgage rates?
A key constituent of higher prices for households is food price inflation. Surely this is the time to back our farmers and deliver UK food security? So is Burnham going to scrap the Family Farm Tax?
It’s not just food security – if the Iran conflict shows us one thing, it’s surely that we need to maximise our domestic supplies of energy. The way fuel prices have spiked in recent months has been incredibly troubling, not least the experience of heating oil orders being cancelled, after being placed in good faith. So does Andy Burnham share Ed Miliband’s dislike for drilling in the North Sea, or can he see the common sense position that it’s madness to import Norwegian oil and gas from the same fields we deny ourselves?
And then there’s national security. Is Andy Burnham going to break with Starmer’s U-turns and weakness, and summon the courage to cut welfare so that we can boost our Armed Forces? With thousands of working age people going on to benefits, who should be working, will he recognise that this is one of the most important ways to strengthen our economy and national resilience?
For now, these big questions will remain unanswered – but in the meantime, I will continue to stand up for my South Suffolk constituents, and demand they get a fair deal from the new administration.
Published in the Suffolk Free Press.
