实录：专访安迪·伯纳姆Transcript: An interview with Andy Burnham

The Economist interviewed Andy Burnham, Britain’s prime minister, while he attended the meeting of Commonwealth leaders in Antigua between November 2nd and 5th. The transcript below, lightly edited for length and clarity, sets out his views on topics ranging from China to the European Union.

The Economist: You famously talked about not wanting Britain to be in hock to the bond market. Is there a danger now that Britain is in hock to America and in hock to Donald Trump?

The prime minister, Andy Burnham: No, I don’t see it that way. I think we’re building a new approach to foreign affairs. Ed Miliband as foreign secretary has provided excellent leadership. We have reset our relationships, if you think about it, in three ways: in the Middle East…in Europe obviously…and then here with the Commonwealth. It’s about a different relationship, and Britain, I think, is back. I used that phrase at the UNGA [United Nations General Assembly]. Britain is back. We are showing confidence on the world stage. We are clear now in our path towards the presidency of the G20 [next year].

The Economist: What is your overarching message on Britain’s place in the world over the next ten years? Many people are saying the world is divided into power blocs, led by America, China and maybe the EU as a third smaller actor. Do you think Britain can act independently of those blocs and take a leadership role despite clearly not having the heft of America or China?

Mr Burnham: Yes is the answer to that. Next year will be the test of it, but it’s a test I’m determined to pass, working with all my colleagues in government… We had a difficult decade. I was clear when I walked up Downing Street that we couldn’t possibly go through another decade like the one we’ve just had. We had to draw a line. And I think we have drawn that line. We’ve made the first significant moves towards positioning Britain in the right way as we go forward.

Do you know the real answer to your question is that I’ve had eight, nine, ten leaders come up to me at this event saying, “Where are you? Where have you been? We need you. The UK has still got unique trust amongst nations and we need you to be more at the forefront of these things.”And they were saying it in the context of being grateful for the way we’ve handled this CHOGM [Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting]. So, I think it’s the moment for us to recognise that in a world in the way that it is, in that presidency role [of the G20], Britain can do something significant.

The Economist: You talked when you were elected about the “Makerfield test”. And I think some people saw that as maybe you being parochial and saying that you only care about your own patch. How does the Makerfield test apply to what you’re trying to do with foreign policy?

Mr Burnham: It’s about the cost of living, isn’t it? It all comes back to the cost of living. The way the world is these days...it means that cost of living issues in Britain are not—we’re not able completely to have control over them, and you’ve got to engage. And the same is true of growth. It’s the case that we’ve got to reach out and work with partners who want to get Britain growing more strongly again. And so, yeah, three months in, I’m absolutely clear about that.

The Makerfield test, just to say, that’s been the most joyful part of my job in the last three months. To explain: I was obviously an MP for 16 years before, I was a minister, and developed a real frustration…about—I kind of left for this reason—Whitehall just not paying attention to my constituency. And it’s been the most joyful thing to come back and to be in a meeting where we were discussing some issue, maybe in quite a cut-glass sort of voice, a civil servant might say, “Well we think this policy will pass the Makerfield test, prime minister.”And I just love that.

I live for those moments because the British state should always have been run with the approach: “Does this help the communities that most need help?”That should be our starting point for policy always. The Economist: What do you want to come away from Antigua having achieved?

Mr Burnham: Well, we’re bringing a new approach. I need to be really plain about that. Britain couldn’t keep turning up with the old approach of no apology… I’ve ruled out reparations and I’m happy to do it again. But the structured dialogue we’ve offered is meaningful and serious and the whole conversation about the past as part of that is serious. I heard the leader of the opposition at the weekend… It’s not leadership never to listen to people who are close friends.

If they feel something strongly, you have to listen to what they’re saying, engage with it meaningfully, and then respond. That’s how Britain builds relationships in this century, by being able to listen and engage. And that’s what we’ll do.

The Economist: Do you agree with the criticism often made of the Commonwealth, but also of Britain’s role within the Commonwealth, that it is punching below its weight? The Commonwealth is huge, comprising a large proportion of the world’s population and GDP, with over 50 members, and yet doesn’t really act together on the geopolitical stage. Is that something you want to change?

Mr Burnham: This is exactly what I’m talking about. We work differently, in a smarter way than we have before. One example will be at the leaders’ summit. I’ll be asking people, “What do you want to play into the G20 as the UK takes the G20 presidency? What are the issues you want me to put forward?”... So what we’ve got ahead of us is an autumn of diplomacy. We’ve got a run of things, all of which are preparatory to the year of the UK presidency of the G20. And if we can get some of these things right in this period, we could have a really successful year next year in terms of Britain being back and really at the heart of the debate.

The Economist: What’s your thinking about Europe at the moment? Your plan is to make a big speech around the time of the summit later this month. How ambitious do you want to be? Have you developed your thinking any more since you announced the reopening of the debate at the Labour conference in September?

Mr Burnham: I think it’s interesting because I sense, since conference, that there is an appetite to discuss it. And those who are making the argument, “Oh my goodness, don’t open up this psychodrama,” are misreading the public mood in my view, because people feel things aren’t as good as they should be and there is scope for improvement. Now, that doesn’t mean you jump then to a certain solution… The Treasury has recently confirmed in the last few days…[that] if we get the high end of our—is this revealing our negotiating strategy? Let’s put it this way, rather than the high end: a deal could add up to 0.4% of GDP. Now, that is a number that you cannot ignore.

I find it hard listening to the leader of the opposition where she pretty much says shut it down, don’t even go there. I cannot and I won’t do that, actually. That is not the position that I—that is a very big dividing line. In this instance, if something can be done to add 0.4% to British GDP, that should be pursued very vigorously, and that’s what I’m doing. So who knows how it plays out in the end game here? But my reflection is the public do actually want—not straight back to, you know, I said in the by-election I’m not re-running the referendum.

I’m not re-running the referendum. That isn’t what’s happening. It’s simply a more pragmatic discussion about what does it mean to get properly close to Europe again, and talking a very different language, I think. Well, it means 0.4% of GDP.

The Economist: How do you think, if at all, that the result of the American midterms changes the relationship between Britain and America? Is this a chance for a reset in that relationship and your relationship with Donald Trump?

Mr Burnham: Possibly a reset more broadly. What I take from the result and the president’s reaction is that we’ve got an opportunity to refocus around the issue that everyone everywhere is struggling with, and that’s the cost of living. I mean, that’s clear from the results. It’s clearly the big issue in the UK and it’s what I’ve been focused on in the last 100 days, my first 100 days. It’s impacting people everywhere. We’ve been hearing it from leaders here in the Commonwealth. So, that’s the opportunity, and of course that means finding resolution to conflict in the Middle East and in Ukraine.

The Economist: Can I ask you about the handover of the Chagos Islands? The Trump administration says it’s against it. Is the British government still committed to eventually handing over sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius?

Mr Burnham: We’re committed to finding a solution that secures the base. That’s what we’re endeavouring to do. The Economist: The base is the priority?

Mr Burnham: It is the priority, given its strategic significance. And what we have to do is go into a new discussion—well, we are in discussion with our US friends to see how we might recast the arrangement that better meets their concerns. We look at the Greenland deal and obviously there was a solution reached there. Now, maybe there is something there that we can take from that to see if there’s a solution that works in relation to Diego Garcia. But that is something that we’re very engaged on. We’re working hard on it, but it is challenging.

The Economist: You’re obviously putting a lot of thought into the G20 already. One of the challenges of the G20 is that it includes Russia. Will Vladimir Putin be invited to the G20 summit in Britain next year? Mr Burnham: No.

The Economist: Even though he’s a member of the G20, Russia is a member, you’re clear that he can’t be invited?

Mr Burnham: There are sanctions against leading figures in the administration. And there’s some technicalities about invites, because I think they’re handled by the G20 rather than by Britain, I think I’ve got that right. So, if I maybe rephrase it, technically [he is invited], but will not be coming because of an outstanding sanction.

The Economist: On Ukraine—are you still prepared to join a peacekeeping force after, hopefully, a peace deal?

Mr Burnham: Yes, absolutely. And actually, one reflection I thought—I don’t know if you picked this up from our readout with the president of Ghana—he was saying how Russia is recruiting in Ghana, which was something of a surprise to me anyway, when he put it that directly. And you get the sense just how interconnected all of these things are really that are going on around the world. To be in the Caribbean to hear from the incoming chair of the African Union about how Russia is recruiting in Africa, it’s really important that we join the dots, I think, in terms of what’s going on in the world at the moment. And that’s what I’ve been doing about Russia in some of my public pronouncements. I stand by them, and they have been, I think, deploying a strategy that I think we need to call out and be really direct about.

The Economist: I imagine you would like Xi Jinping to come to the G20 in Manchester. What’s your view of Britain’s relationship with China? Keir Starmer went there earlier this year, a trip widely seen as a success, but it was only a first step. Do you think Britain can establish a relationship of trust with China?

Mr Burnham: Well, President Xi visited Manchester in 2015, and I spoke to him and we had a good conversation about that, and he was warm about that visit. And obviously he’s coming back 12 years later and he will see a big difference in Manchester. And some of that has been done in partnership with China. So we proceed carefully, but I’m sure there is a real opportunity there as well on the back of Keir Starmer’s visit. I think Keir was right to visit. I think it has taken the conversation on from where it was under the previous administration. And the G20 again is an opportunity to get that relationship right. And I think particularly we can do something around AI.

The Economist: And, as Rishi Sunak did with the first AI summit, do you think Britain can help get America and China around the same table when it comes to global AI supervision?

Mr Burnham: As I sit here today, that feels challenging, but we’ve got to hold out the need to find global agreements on AI. If we don’t, the risks of recent times will magnify, they will significantly intensify. So, you’ve got to go into it with that aim.

The Economist: You’ve mentioned the Middle East and resetting the relationship with the Gulf states. Israel, of course, has just had an election. The precise outcome of that is unclear, but if there is a government not led by Benjamin Netanyahu, do you think there can be a reset of relations between Britain and Israel, which many people in Israel believe have fallen to a low ebb as a result of the decisions taken by you and Ed Miliband in the last few months?

Mr Burnham: We will have to wait, won’t we? There’s a very complicated process underway [to form Israel’s next government]. I think it only starts today or tomorrow. So we’re at the beginnings of that whole coalition-building process. So we’ll see how that develops. But we wouldn’t rule out what you’re saying. Obviously time needs to be allowed for those discussions to be had. We were clear that we were right, we have no doubt that it was right to take a clear position… I’ve been talking to the Australian prime minister here and they are considering similar sanctions.

That was the right thing to do. We must keep the two-state solution alive. And the answer to your question is, we would work with any administration that was meaningfully committed to the two-state solution.

The Economist: How does your stance on AI fit with the Makerfield test? Is it about protecting British people from the threats? Is it about allowing them to take advantage of the opportunities? You’ve said that at the G20 next year, this is going to be a big theme. What kind of end goal are you trying to get to on Britain’s stance on AI?

Mr Burnham: Just before I get into the specifics of AI, I just want to address the impact of AI, because it is the case that we need to be clearer with young people about career choices that might be more AI-proof than others. And that’s why I’ve been on this thing for a long time now about technical education and the need to give it equal priority within the school system. And the AI revolution only strengthens my view. I came in as the mayor of Greater Manchester in 2017, and at that time the whole place was about coding, there were people setting up coding schools.

And within a decade, that whole industry has been in many ways taken away. And we need to have a discussion about AI, which is partly just about giving people a really clear understanding about what skills are AI-proof, because I think that is a really important part of this.

In terms of the broader approach—and I’ve said it will be top of the agenda in the G20 presidency—it’s about AI for good, isn’t it? And really spelling out what does AI for good look like, while being clear-eyed about its risks. The obvious one, I think, to look at—again, back to the Makerfield test—I think the big one to focus on is health and life sciences. I think AI can play a major role in analysing health data, diagnostics, lifestyle, vital signs.

The Economist: What were you trying to do with the budget [on October 28th]? What were you trying to tell voters, businesses, markets?

Mr Burnham: First and foremost, responsibility, not taking risks with people’s finances or the public finances. It had to be a budget for the moment that we were in. And obviously this year has been a challenging year pretty much from start to finish. So we had to pitch the budget for that moment. And everyone will say it’s as though you’ve got a blank canvas to just go and paint whatever you like, but you haven’t, obviously. So it was a budget that first and foremost has had to do that—but be radical where it could be.

And it was radical on devolution, fiscal devolution. People won’t necessarily feel that because it’s something that will come in time. But it is radical on that front. But also we had to deliver some meaningful support. And within what we could do, we believe we managed it. Again, it was quite radical on reform, so, we’ve set out a pathway for energy reform. And if you look at what John [referring to John Healey, the chancellor] said, again, it was significant in talking about cheaper energy being the goal, less loaded onto bills, standing charges coming off, more control of the grid.

The Economist: There seems to be some disagreement about exactly how much of a shift there has been in energy policy because the goal to achieve clean power by 2030 remains. Are you clear that you think this is a new phase and a new way of powering the country?

Mr Burnham: The ten-year plan will lay it out. And this budget showed the first steps towards a different way of thinking about energy: stronger intervention, public control. The economy cannot support an approach to energy where a business can wait three, four years for a grid connection. That is a drag on growth. That approach isn’t good enough. The fragmented nature of the system is posing real risks to growth, as well as a cost to both businesses and households.

So the things that we announced were quite significant. Obviously, it’s linked to Jackdaw and the creation of an energy wealth fund. That whole drive to speed up the delinking of gas to electricity pricing is a huge acceleration, I would say, on where we were before.

The Economist: You talk about the ten-year plan. Presumably that will also more broadly explain your thinking about reversing or fixing the “40 years of neoliberalism” that you’ve talked about? Because no one can pretend that your budget reversed 40 years of neoliberalism.

Mr Burnham: I’m not going to claim that, but it [the budget] started the journey is what it did, it took the first steps. So the ten-year plan, people should reserve judgment until the ten-year plan. I’ve always been clear that that’s the major moment for me because it will lay out a journey that is a very different one to the one Britain has been on. And it will involve stronger public control. And when I say public control, people will think of the utilities, but also people should think of investment strategy because Greater Manchester in the ten years that I led it, that is what it slowly did.

It took control of investment and the building of an economy linked to that. And that’s what we’re doing with the creation of good growth funds for all of the devolved areas… What people will see in the ten-year plan is how all of these threads will weave together. You’ve got the goal of reindustrialisation. That requires a different way of thinking about the economy than we’ve had in this country for a long, long time. We saw deindustrialisation begin 40 years ago, and the approach was just to let that happen without significant intervention.

The Economist: And is it a definite goal of yours to increase manufacturing jobs and to increase manufacturing as a percentage of the economy?

Mr Burnham: It’s my goal to increase high-value employment, for sure, in all parts of the country. And to have a more intentional approach to building out clusters in industries where we can be world-class. Gordon Brown has really pushed this idea of innovation nation. And he is absolutely right to do so. That’s Britain’s industrial approach, as far as I’m concerned, for the forthcoming period: mapping where our industrial strengths are, being more collaborative across all of the UK in relation to building them out, and then changing education so that we pivot young people towards those technical pathways.

Mr Burnham: When the ten-year plan comes out later this year—people are underestimating the significance of this, there’s been briefing around this week, and—I just wanted to just drop this in with you—inaccurate briefing. This idea that it’s going to be a one-year, you know, to try and play down—no, I will lay out my very clear vision for Britain. And it will be substantial, and it will also be… compelling because I am weaving the different threads together… We may go into the new year, to be honest, there is that—December or January, I think we will need to leave that open. I don’t think we’ve got a firm landing zone for it yet. But it’s definitely not going to be what has been briefed this week.

The Economist: You have mentioned the leader of the opposition several times and your criticisms of her position. You didn’t mention Nigel Farage. This is a big difference from where Labour was a year ago, when it was very focused on the fight against Reform and the fight against populism. Do you see the Conservatives as your undisputed main political rivals?

Mr Burnham: No. It’s just that Kemi [Badenoch] turns up at PMQs [Prime Minister’s Questions], whereas Nigel Farage doesn’t. But I think, in many ways, what I’m calling out is what’s going on on the right of politics, because my critique of Kemi is that her positions are being guided by the worry she has about the parties to the right of her. So they’re bound up together to me, the three of them actually: Conservatives, Reform and Restore. That’s the dynamic that is driving all three of them as far as I’m concerned. It’s just the case that she’s there and asking me questions every week.

To be honest, I’m not wanting to talk about any of them so much myself, and I haven’t done that as much as people before me, because my approach to politics is: what am I going to do for people? What’s my approach?... They have, all three of them, contributed to creating a divided Britain, basically. The parties of the right bear responsibility for creating a divided Britain in the last decade. And what I am doing is saying, “Right, I’m drawing the line with that, and you’re not setting the terms of the debate anymore.”...

I think the pendulum—obviously, in the days we’ve been away, the pendulum has swung away from populism in other parts of the world. And so we’ve got to be confident in the moment that we’re in. I think people are looking for something more hopeful, something different, more unified. ■