Burnham urged to push growth, not caution, as Labour tests power

Andy Burnham is being urged to take a less cautious approach to economic policy if he wants Labour to do more than hold the line. In an opinion piece for The Guardian Business, economist Jonathan Portes argues that the party should be judged not only on whether it restores order to the public finances, but on whether it changes the direction of an economy that has struggled for years to deliver stronger growth and higher living standards.

The argument is framed around Labour’s wider mission. Portes says the party was elected to transform the economy, not simply to stabilise it. That distinction matters because the current debate is not being made in a vacuum. He places Labour’s inheritance alongside the damage of austerity, Brexit, the inflation shock and the Truss episode, while also noting that the present situation is not, in his view, a crisis in the same sense as some of those earlier shocks.

Burnham must learn from Starmer’s mistakes

Portes uses Andy Burnham as the test case for a broader question about Labour’s economic strategy. His warning is that excessive caution can prevent a government from using its political mandate to make meaningful changes. For Burnham, that means looking beyond the immediate need to appear fiscally disciplined and considering how policy can support growth over the longer term.

The article points to several areas where Portes sees room for action. He identifies devolution, tax policy, the European Union and immigration as potential sources of economic opportunity. In the piece, these are not treated as side issues or political distractions. Instead, they are presented as levers that could help a Labour government move from cautious management to a more ambitious growth agenda.

That matters because the underlying economic problems described in the article are long running. Portes says Britain has spent more than a decade and a half dealing with weak productivity growth, falling relative living standards and deteriorating public services. Against that backdrop, simply avoiding turmoil would be an incomplete answer to the challenges facing Labour.

Why the economic debate matters now

Portes does not dismiss the value of improved fiscal and macroeconomic discipline. On the contrary, he says restoring seriousness to economic management is an achievement that should not be ignored. But he also argues that such stability is only part of the job. In his view, the central question is whether Labour has actually changed the trajectory of the economy.

That is why the piece is positioned as a critique of caution rather than a rejection of responsibility. It suggests that Labour can be serious about the public finances while still being more ambitious about growth. The challenge for Burnham, as Portes presents it, is to avoid treating prudence as an end in itself.

The article also reflects a wider tension inside centre-left economic politics: how to combine credibility with reform. Portes’s view is that the answer is not to retreat from difficult policy debates, but to use them. Devolution, tax choices, relations with the EU and immigration policy are all presented as areas where a government could shape a stronger economy if it is willing to move beyond the caution of recent years.

The broader message is clear. Labour, in Portes’s account, should not measure success only by market calm or ministerial discipline. It should be judged by whether it can reverse the long stagnation described in the piece and build a more productive, more resilient economy.