Burnham and Badenoch revive red versus blue politics as Reform land £36m mega donation

The Tory party, indeed, seems cock-a-hoop at a line they believe they can use repeatedly, asserting that the Prime Minister cares more about welfare provisions and social security than about safeguarding the nation against external threats. This narrative allows them to paint Labour as fiscally irresponsible and soft on security, a classic right-wing attack line. Yet, paradoxically, a positive atmosphere also pervades No 10. One source, speaking on condition of anonymity, confided that the recent face-offs between the new Labour leader, Andy Burnham, and the prominent Conservative figure, Kemi Badenoch, have "breathed new life into the Labour versus Tory dynamic." This suggests a curious contentment within both traditional political tribes, even as they gear up for what should be a fierce electoral battle.

The question naturally arises: how can both sides be happy when, ultimately, politics is a zero-sum contest with only one winner? The answer lies in the clarity of the ideological battleground. On the security spat, Burnham’s backers are adamant that he does indeed want to strategically cut certain welfare spending to find more money for defence. This nuance, however, often gets lost in the cut and thrust of political rhetoric. No 10, acutely aware of the potential for misinterpretation, is reportedly preparing to explain in greater detail Burnham’s belief that true security encompasses not just military might, but also secure communities – a state not achieved by indiscriminately slashing benefits.

Crucially, Downing Street strategists reckon that while the general concept of cutting welfare might appeal to a segment of the electorate, "once you dig into the ‘who’ and the ‘how’ of doing that, public support wavers." They specifically cite Kemi Badenoch’s recent proposals for housing benefit cuts as a moment when "public opinion goes all over the shop," indicating a strong public aversion to reductions that impact the most vulnerable. This calculated risk-taking, according to government sources, is characteristic of the Prime Minister, who is "happy to grab thorny issues and put himself at the centre of them," much as he did with the controversial early release of prisoners. He has a penchant for articulating a grabby-sounding view before the government has fully formulated a solution, staking a part of his reputation on it and then making the case, optimistically hoping it will work out. However, as political choices become increasingly complex and difficult, "hope" alone, as a slogan and a strategy, could never be sufficient for sustained governance.

For Labour, their renewed buoyancy stems not merely from the change of leader, but from the perceived transformation of their political fortunes. Andy Burnham is widely regarded as a more effective politician than his predecessor, Sir Keir Starmer, appearing significantly more at ease when communicating with the public. Whether it’s through an eight-second TikTok clip designed for viral reach or meticulously crafted, lengthy explanations of his positions in a newspaper opinion piece and subsequently shared on Facebook, Burnham demonstrates a versatility and authenticity that resonates. More profoundly, Burnham is articulating arguments that align more closely with Labour’s core psychology: the call to build council houses, advocate for stronger action against the perceived excesses of the Israeli government, and robustly defend those who rely on state benefits. Labour believes, for now, that they have found a leader who is not only a better communicator but also one whose policy positions are instinctively more appealing to their traditional base.

The party now feels it knows what its leader believes, at least broadly. As one senior figure succinctly put it: "He has a worldview which the last one didn’t – he’s clear what he wants and he’s grabbed the reins of power." This contrasts sharply with Starmer, who was often criticised for a perceived lack of clear ideological direction. Another individual who worked under both Starmer and now Burnham remarked, "It’s just chalk and cheese," highlighting the stark difference in leadership styles and political conviction. Furthermore, the importance of keeping backbenchers content and feeling understood cannot be underestimated. A government source light-heartedly joked that the whips, traditionally the enforcers of party discipline, are becoming more "like an HR department," listening to concerns rather than simply driving the troops forward. This shift is a lesson learned from Starmer’s tenure, where many backbenchers felt a lack of reciprocal loyalty, ultimately undermining his authority.

Across the aisle, Kemi Badenoch’s Conservative tribe also appears more chipper, largely because, as she has confided to friends, there is now a sharper ideological divide between the two major parties. She believes "it’s much clearer to have those arguments rather than a process discussion with Starmer," whose pragmatic, often triangulating approach, made it difficult for the Tories to define a clear opposition. Shadow ministers now reckon it’s easier to articulate classic Conservative arguments because, in the words of one, "Andy Burnham is a classic old leftie and we’re the obvious answer to that."

Unsurprisingly, Labour sources vehemently dispute this characterisation. One close ally of Burnham branded him "a pragmatist," while another denied he is further to the left than Starmer, simply because "Keir was so hard to place." However, a Conservative source, with a pointed edge, wonders how long Labour’s current happiness with their new leader will last, given Burnham’s rapid return to Parliament after a period away. The source quipped, "looking at the benches opposite there is a vision of somebody who has turned up to a Tinder date and doesn’t quite look like his profile pic." Ouch – a barbed comment suggesting that Burnham’s image, perhaps burnished during his time outside Westminster, may not fully match the reality of leading the opposition.

The crucial question remains: will this newly refreshed red-blue battle prove to be the real deal, a genuine return to traditional adversarial politics? Rhetorical lines have certainly been drawn this week, but real choices and arguments loom large. The current bouncy feeling around both parties may not last, especially when it comes to the formidable challenge of finding cash for the Prime Minister’s numerous big promises. Downing Street sources privately acknowledge that significantly bringing down the welfare bill, in the way that Alan Milburn envisages with his highly anticipated (but unconfirmed) report expected before the Budget, will necessitate billions spent upfront – money the government might struggle immensely to find. Similarly, the ambition to build the council houses Burnham desires, aimed at cutting the housing benefits bill, will require substantial financial commitments and "big cheques." It is one thing to promise these Labour-friendly dreams; it is another, perhaps at the party conference, to answer the much harder question of how the government plans to pay for them. It will not be easy for a mid-term prime minister to identify immediate funds for investments that might only yield savings years down the line.

Despite these looming fiscal challenges, Burnham’s Labour party is happy to engage in discussions about the economy and their plans to support hard-up families, consistently referencing the chaos of Liz Truss’s brief premiership and keen to highlight the Prime Minister’s early steps to ease financial pressure. With borrowing costs and the country’s national debt seriously sky-high, the Conservatives are equally pleased to sketch out a classic left-right argument on fiscal responsibility.

Adding another layer of complexity to this re-emerging two-party dynamic is the recent pressure on Reform UK. Both Labour and the Conservatives have been enjoying a moment of real pressure on their populist opponents, who have recently slipped back in the polls, besieged by claims and counterclaims about party funding. However, this weekend’s revelation of a mega donation to Reform UK dramatically illustrates that Nigel Farage still possesses the capacity to disrupt established political conventions. The staggering sum of £36 million, originating from crypto billionaire Ben Delo and cryptocurrency investor Christopher Harborne, is completely off the charts for UK politics.

Providing context for this unprecedented financial injection, a senior political figure observed: "To put £36 million in context, one man has donated a sum bigger than Labour’s entire 2024 election budget, bigger than the Conservatives’, and about six times what Reform actually spent in the last general election." During that campaign, Labour raised approximately £9 million, while the Tories, Reform, and the Liberal Democrats each secured less than £2 million. These extra millions grant Farage enormous and immediate spending power, with the possibility of even more to come. You can bet that the other parties will "cry foul" over the sheer scale of this big money coming from individuals with deep pockets, not least because Ben Delo was granted an unconditional pardon by former US President Donald Trump over charges of violating the Bank Secrecy Act.

It would be foolish for either of the two main parties to assume that this apparent return to traditional two-party politics is here to stay, particularly with such an influential financial disruptor now firmly in the game. Yet, it is strangely novel to find ourselves in a moment when both Labour and the Conservatives are broadly content, each believing they have found their footing. As the new Prime Minister’s political universe begins to settle, a key Labour figure aptly observed: "We’ve had the amuse-bouche and it was very tasty. What happens next?" The answer to that question will define the coming political era.