KEMI BADENOCH: In the 1980s Britons were proud of their country, richer and happier. I want to make us like that again
Kemi Badenoch, the Leader of the Opposition, has written a column attacking new Labour Prime Minister Andy Burnham's economic approach shortly after he was sworn in. She argues his belief that wealth is under-taxed and the state should play a larger role in the economy is fundamentally wrong, and contrasts it with what she presents as the enterprise-driven success of the Thatcher era in the 1980s, which she says made Britain more prosperous and confident.
Badenoch criticises Burnham's stated plans, including potential nationalisation of industries such as water and the National Lottery, and his pledge to tackle the "cost of living crisis" through higher taxes on the wealthy. She cites figures suggesting take-home pay, adjusted for tax and inflation, is no higher than in 2008, and claims the economy is performing at its worst level in over two centuries, blaming both previous Conservative governments and current Labour policies for stifling business and growth.
- Badenoch criticises new PM Andy Burnham's tax-and-spend economic plans
- She champions 1980s Thatcherite enterprise policies as the alternative
- Claims UK take-home pay has stagnated since the 2008 financial crisis
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of Badenoch's argument point to a genuine strand of national experience: for many Britons, the 1980s brought rising home ownership, trade union reform, lower inflation after the turmoil of the 1970s, and a sense of national renewal and international standing. They argue that patriotism, individual enterprise and a smaller state produced real prosperity, and that reviving that confidence and economic dynamism is a legitimate and needed corrective to what they see as decades of managed decline, high taxation and diminished ambition. From this view, questioning a new Labour government's direction, especially one led by a figure from the party's soft-left tradition, is a reasonable and necessary check rather than mere nostalgia.
The case against
Critics counter that the 1980s were also a period of deep division, deindustrialisation, mass unemployment in mining and manufacturing communities, and social unrest, so nostalgic framing risks glossing over real hardship experienced by large parts of the country, particularly in the North and Wales. They would argue that Andy Burnham, drawing on experience representing post-industrial communities, offers a legitimate alternative vision centred on regional investment, public services and social cohesion, and that dismissing his agenda before its policies are even known reflects reflexive opposition rather than substantive critique. They see calls to 'return' to an idealised past as overlooking how much Britain and its economy have changed, and argue that different values, fairness, collective provision and addressing inequality, deserve equal standing as measures of national success.