Relations between Andy Burnham and Harriet Harman must be disintegrating quickly. After the leadership favourite abstained during last night’s vote on the Welfare Bill, Burnham attempted to his logic on the World at One. Burnham said his mind hadn’t changed and he has always been in favour of a ‘reasoned amendment’ — but he was unhappy with how the vote went:
‘Let me be clear: this was still a compromise position and it wasn’t a strong enough position for me. But I as leader firstly would have opposed this bill outright last night and would do so if elected leader.
‘And number two though, I faced a choice: did I, having made the party move its position, did I then defy the compromise position, and I wasn’t prepared to split the party and make the job of opposition even harder.
‘I’m putting myself forward to lead the party, it doesn’t seem to be right to be therefore splitting it.’
To close political observers, there is some consistency to Burnham’s position and the door remains open for Burnham to vote down the bill at its third reading. But to your average punter — and Labour activist — it looks rather dubious and confusing. It was put to Burnham on WATO that Labour members will be trying to figure out ‘which you are they voting for’ in the leadership contest. He conceded ‘it was a mess’ before putting the blame on the party’s lack of leadership:
‘This is a party crying out for leadership and this is what I have shown in recent in days because the party had a very different position on Thursday.’
And pointed towards his role as shadow health secretary for the reason behind abstaining on the vote:
‘I’m a member of the shadow cabinet. I have a collective responsibility that comes with that role. The current leadership adopted a position, having moved somewhat, but in my view it wasn’t strong enough.’
This remark appear to be a coded attack on Harriet Harman, who has found herself at odds with Burnham over the party’s response to the Welfare Bill. If this was such an important matter, which Burnham is suggesting it is, he could have always resigned from the Shadow Cabinet and voted with his conscience.
Burnham also said it was important to hold the party together, so it can ‘begin to take the fight to a Chancellor who is doing great damage to the lives of vulnerable people’. Given that 1 in 5 MPs defied the party whip, this strategy needs some more work.
Comments