Andy Burnham becomes prime minister on Monday (20 July) and at that point we will learn the make-up of the new Cabinet. There has been plenty of jockeying for position among existing ministers and ambitious backbenchers. Who will be chancellor? What will happen to Ed? What about Shabana, or Yvette? Rachel is surely for the chop? Louise and Anneliese are clearly on the up. As the rumours have flown, there has been the occasional suggestion that Douglas Alexander could be replaced as Scottish Secretary. Now, if Burnham has a mind to promote him, I could see the point. But if not, I would argue strongly that he should be left to get on with the job.
There are a number of reasons for this, which I’ll come to. First, it’s worth admitting that Alexander is not universally popular among his Scottish colleagues. His critics accuse him of being arrogant and overly brusque at times, especially to underlings. He is blamed by some for Scottish Labour’s dreadful performance in the recent Holyrood election, a campaign of which he was a key architect.
Well, maybe. I should say that in my dealings with him I have found the latter-day Alexander – since his return to parliament in 2024 – to be charming, thoughtful, honest, self-deprecating and genuinely engaging. You rarely finish a conversation with him without coming away with a clever insight or a fresh line of thinking. He has an unusually supple brain, which is of course now complemented by great experience inside and outside politics. He is a grown-up and a team player in a modern climate that is too often infantile and self-interested.
As for the campaign, there were clearly errors. The manifesto was overly timid and didn’t, in the end, establish clear dividing lines between Labour and the SNP: both parties offered a sort of mushy palette of social democratic initiatives. The reliance on Anas Sarwar’s energy and charisma failed to move the dial in the way strategists predicted it would. But in the end, the unpopularity of Keir Starmer and his government was the major factor behind the loss. I don’t think there was much Scottish Labour could do to overcome that particular barrier. As one senior figure gloomily put it to me, “what was possible was not sufficient”.
In the aftermath of that result, the fifth straight thumping at the hands of the Nats, there is a lot of thinking to be done. There are suggestions from some that Scottish Labour should formally separate from the Westminster party, emphasising that it is wholly focused on issues north of the border and freeing itself to more convincingly compete with the SNP when it comes to “standing up for Scotland”. That unshiftable 30-35 per cent of the electorate that seems willing to back the SNP come what may certainly indicates that identity politics remains a powerful, and for some, dominant driver of choice. How can a social democratic, unionist party operate in such an environment? If the SNP seems unable to lose, how can Labour win? How can it be “more Scottish” without losing the values such as solidarity and internationalism that have long been at its core?
Doing the same thing over and over again simply hasn’t worked, and so some bright ideas are needed. I’d argue that Alexander has the intellectual chops to play a central role in this discussion alongside the Holyrood leadership. He is also the most eloquent defender of the Union available to the party – reasoned, moderate, and always with a touch of rhetorical poetry. The SNP will not let up on making the case for independence, and so the opposing view must continue to be put. Alexander is good at calling out his opponents’ bullshit without coming across as overly tribal or aggressive.
Alexander can be useful to Burnham on a number of fronts, too. He is one of those politicians who can cope with whatever a media interviewer throws at him, however hostile the questioning and premise. That is the reason he is often deployed as the “minister for the Today Programme” regardless of the issue being discussed and even though his primary responsibility is for Scotland. He has the ability to square circles in a convincing and ostensibly reasonable style, which is a significant frontline skill. He is a very good politician – his handling of Starmer’s downfall, where he mixed public loyalty with a frank critique of where the government had gone wrong, put many of his colleagues to shame. Given the tough choices that lie ahead, Burnham is likely to need these talents.
Given the incoming prime minister’s desire for a “place-based” politics, for a new era of hyper-devolution, the Scottish Secretary has useful experience and form. He has already overseen the UK’s Pride in Place programme, which will see up to £280m shared among 14 of Scotland’s most deprived communities to reclaim derelict land, strengthen locally owned facilities and address inequalities. Burnham has said he wants to see greater and more direct involvement by his administration in the devolved nations, which is something Alexander has championed since taking office. It should be entirely possible to do this in partnership with the Scottish government, to everyone’s benefit, if grown-ups can behave like grown-ups.
Scotland is not overly burdened with politicians of the first stripe, and our national debate suffers as a result. Our social problems are deep and entrenched. We are far too centralised. Our politics is too often cheap and shallow. We need the likes of Douglas Alexander to help lift our game. So please, Andy, leave him where he is.
[Further reading: Andy Burnham isn’t the only King in the North]
Content from our partners
Related
Join the debate
Subscribe here to commentAbsolutely ridiculous piece. What has he got on you?
“Doing the same thing over and over again simply hasn’t worked”. You mean bringing back a former Scottish Secretary?