Andy burnham

There are intriguing manoeuvres on the education front today. Michael Gove has written a letter to Andy Burnham, calling on his counterpart to guarantee to protect the Academies programme. There’s nothing unusual in this: politicians are always writing pointless letters to each other. But the timing of this one is quite significant, coinciding as it does with former Blair spinner Peter Hyman’s decision to create a free school, with, it is understood, the tacit support of Andrew Adonis. As I’ve written before, Burnham has forsaken his reforming instincts. Convinced that Gove is a weak link, he has not seen the need to leave ‘old Labour’s’ comfort zone on education. Now

Michael Gove has just finished announcing to the Commons his proposed replacement for Educational Maintenance Allowance. The new scheme is more targeted than the old one that went to 45 percent of those who stayed in education post-16. Interestingly, it will be administered by the schools and colleges themselves. Gove’s argument is that it is these institutions that are best equipped to know which student needs how much money to support them staying in education. This drew predictable opposition from the Labour benches which wanted a top down, national scheme. On top of this discretionary fund, every student who is receiving income support will receive £1,200 a year. This new

It was predictable that Labour would use the outcome of the judicial review last Friday to try and re-heat the Building Schools for the Future row. Andy Burnham was in florid form in the House of Commons on the subject. He demanded that ‘Michael Gove apologise to the communities who suffered from the devastating effects of his disastrous decision making.’ Burnham is now writing to the PM to demand that Gove recuse himself from the judge required review of six BSF projects. In truth, most of Gove’s problems in cancelling BSF projects have been a result of the shambolic and wasteful way in which the programme was run. As Gove

One of the more depressing sights in politics at the moment is how Andy Burnham is leading the Labour party back to its comfort zone on education. Burnham, who The Spectator once named minister to watch, seems to have jettisoned all of his Blairite reforming instincts. He now wants to draw as many dividing lines as possible and side with the vested interests and the status quo at every turn. In last night’s education debate, Barry Sheerman, who chaired the education select committee during the Labour years, pointed out that Gove’s education plans are building on the last government’s incomplete reforms. As Sheerman put it, “I am going to be

Andy Burnham crossed a line today in using Sarah Vine, Michael Gove’s wife, to take a pop at the Education Secretary. Burnham, mockingly citing a recent Vine column, argued that the fact that the Goves have a cleaner ‘raises further questions about whether he is living in the same world as the rest of us.’ Now, by this logic I suspect that the majority of his shadow Cabinet colleagues are not living in what Burnham thinks of as ‘the same world as the rest of us’. This ungallant attack seems particularly unpleasant when you consider that Sarah Vine came to Frankie Burnham’s defence when she was attacked for the outfit she wore

One question swirling through the sea of British politics is this: how will Ed Miliband act towards the Lib Dems? The Labour leader certainly didn’t flinch from attacking the yellow brigade during the leadership contest, at one point calling them a “disgrace to the traditions of liberalism.” But surely he’ll have to soften that rhetoric in case the next election delivers another bout of frenzied coalition negotiations. Which is why Andy Burnham’s article in the Guardian today is worth noting down. In making his point – that the Lib Dems haven’t won the pupil premium they sought – he does all he can to force a wedge between Nick Clegg

In the end, it was all quite exciting. After four months of soporific campaigning, after a speech by Gordon Brown, after tribute video upon tribute video, it all came down to an astonishingly tense round of results. And Ed Miliband edged out his brother by just over 1 percentage point overall, 50.6 to 49.4. It may have been the outcome that most punters expected coming into today – but it is not one that many would have predicted, with any confidence, back in May. Looking at the full voting split, a less flattering picture emerges. David Miliband actually won two of the three voting blocks: the MPs turned out 53-47

No doubt attempting to affect affability and languid charm, one of the Milibands has goaded his team into mastering a hybrid of semaphore and tic-tac to bring him early news of the leadership election result. It’s unclear which of the brothers has descended into total monomania, but it’s sobering to think he may have his finger on the button one day. The ballot closed yesterday, but idle speculation about the shadow cabinet has opened. The Miliband that loses is expected to be encouraged to run for shadow chancellor, though from what I hear Yvette Cooper or Ed Balls are the favourites for that prize. A deadwood edition of the Telegraph

“Quietly confident.” That’s how Diane Abbott felt as the Labour leadership ballot entered its final hours today. I can only assume that she meant “…of victory,” but the bookies, and all sensible observers, are telling a different story. With the polls now closed, Ladbrokes has David Miliband as the 4/7 favourite, Ed Miliband is on 5/4, Ed Balls and Andy Burnham are both 100/1 shots – and Abbott? Well, Abbott is wheezing along at 150/1. Whoever wins, one thing is for certain: we are about to enter a new cycle in British politics, and one which should clear up a few itchingly persistent questions. How will the coalition fare against

This weekend’s YouGov poll showing Ed Miliband ahead in the Labour leadership contest is the talk of Westminster today. One David Miliband backer told me that he thought it was flawed as it assumed that MPs’ second preferences would split evenly between the two brothers when David had the advantage. I was told that nearly all Andy Burnham’s parliamentary backers would put David second, that most of Balls’ would do the same and that Ed Miliband could only rely on Diane Abbott’s parliamentary backers’ second preferences. But Ed Miliband’s supporters dispute this. They believe that they are making progress everywhere.   There are now just two hustings to go—one at

David Miliband’s performance in Sky News’ Labour leadership hustings will have calmed the nerved of his supporters. In the run-off between him and his brother, David came out on top. His answers were generally sharper and he managed to parry away Ed’s criticisms on tuition fees and foreign policy. (In a pointed remark, Ed said that the Labour government’s foreign policy had been based on ‘old ideas’.) Indeed, Ed Miliband only seemed to get going in his closing statement which was pitch-perfect David’s best moment came when the contenders were asked to pick between Blair and Brown. Ed Balls opted for Brown, Diane Abbott said that Brown ‘was the better

As Tim Montgomerie notes, cuts are becoming more real. Yesterday, the government axed NHS Direct, the telephone health service. Actually it hasn’t been axed but replaced by the more cost effective ‘111’ service. Removing the sacrosanct letters ‘NHS’ from the title of any body is anathema to the opposition, who have mobilised a frantic defence over the past 24 hours, so predictable and I can barely contain my indifference. Twitter has exploded in a fit of righteous indignation; Ed Balls, without a hint of irony, is using words like ‘callous’ and ‘ill-thought policies’; and Andy Burnham’s talking about Andrew Lansley’s ‘vindictive mission to break up the NHS’. It’s the name

Whilst Ed Balls descends into bellicose self-caricature, Andy Burnham, the quiet man of this campaign, has written an incendiary article for the Guardian. It is subtly constructed: behind the veneer of his folksy idiom, Burnham proclaims a self-conscious radicalism. He has sharpened some of the ideas expressed so loosely in his pamphlet Aspirational Socialism. He advocates the adoption of land value tax, the abolition of inheritance tax and a very tough Blairite stance on crime and the causes of crime. He angrily dismisses the Milibands as thoughtless ‘comfort zone’ politicians, both stuck dumb in a trance to the mantra of ‘tax and spend’. Burnham’s aides must be as aghast as

Andy Burnham’s leadership campaign is going the way of all flesh. According to Left Foot Forward’s model, Burnham is set to come fourth behind Ed Balls. A You Gov poll predicted a similarly poor showing for Burnham. I’m surprised by this. Burnham is presentable against a field of gawky rivals. Also, after a faltering start, he has tuned a clear anti-establishment message, crafted to politicise the north south divide and New Labour’s soulless metropolitanism. He reiterates it for today’s Independent, arguing that the party has been run for too long in ‘an elitist, London-centric and controlling way’ and that New Labour was ‘born of a distrust of its members.’ He

I can’t work out what’s stranger: that anyone, let along the author Ken Follett, should donate £100,000 to Ed Balls’ leadership campaign, or that the Liverpool footballer Jamie Carragher (“Mr Liverpool”) should give £10,000 to the devoted Evertonian Andy Bunrham. Either way, they’re probably the two stand-out entries in the latest list of Labour leadership donations. But the real story is the same as the last time the donations were published: David Miliband’s monetary advantage. Even with Ed Balls raising £103,000 in July, the elder Miliband brother still comes out on top with £138,835 – adding to an overall war chest which dwarfs those of all the other contenders. The