Change and hope. That is what our unelected would-be Prime Minister Andy Burnham offered the country in his acceptance speech in Makerfield in the early hours of Friday morning.

Nearly two years ago, Sir Keir Starmer stood outside Number 10 Downing Street and delivered a remarkably similar speech, although to be fair to him he had gone to the trouble of being elected by the nation’s voters.

Starmer mentioned ‘change’ four times versus Burnham’s score of eight. The ‘King of the North’ also won on ‘hope’, invoking it four times compared to Starmer’s three. Their speeches were equally bland and equally empty.

The word ‘change’ was emblazoned on the front of Labour’s 2024 manifesto. The rhetoric is the same. Britain is broken, and Starmer/Burnham will revive it.

Since the outgoing Prime Minister has failed abysmally in that endeavour, why should anybody apart from deluded Labour MPs terrified of losing their seats believe that his successor will do any better?

A successor, I should point out, who – apart from a brief stint on trade magazines – has spent his entire adult life in politics. He has been a researcher, special adviser, MP and minister, with practically no experience of real life. And yet he presumes to change our country.

Burnham will fail as Starmer has failed, and for the same reason. Both men have driven into the same high-tax, high-spending political cul de sac. Keir didn’t know the way out and nor does Andy.

Yes, Burnham is more Left-wing. Or, to put it differently, he’s even more of a political shapeshifter than Starmer. He loyally served Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Jeremy Corbyn, with their diverse beliefs. Now he is happy to ride the waves of envy sweeping through Labour.

Today’s Daily Mail reports that Burnham is being urged by allies to tear up the party’s 2024 manifesto pledge not to raise income tax, national insurance or VAT so that he can splurge more billions on projects such as nationalisation and the revival of the northern leg of the exorbitant HS2.

One pro-Burnham minister told this newspaper: ‘We have to be bold to seize this moment. That manifesto was written at a certain point in time but so much has changed.’ What self-serving tripe.

Burnham may well accede to these siren voices. I wouldn’t put any faith in slippery Andy’s commitment during the Makerfield campaign not to increase personal taxes. I suspect he may raise the top rate of income tax from 45 to 50 per cent or even more.

Any attempt to break promises made in Labour’s manifesto would be bound to make voters further question his legitimacy as an unelected Prime Minister. It wouldn’t take long for him to rival Sir Keir Starmer in unpopularity.

Raising personal taxes won’t boost growth or foster investment. Penalising the better-off will drive even more of them abroad and take money out of the economy. Rachel Reeves has increased overall taxation by £70 billion during the past two years, and look where that has got us.

It doesn’t occur to Andy Burnham or his possible Chancellor, Ed Miliband – any more than it has to Starmer or Reeves – that economic growth will only materialise if taxes are lowered and government spending brought under control.

On that subject, there’s no prospect of Burnham persuading Labour MPs, even if he wanted to, that the spiralling welfare budget, forecast to reach £407 billion by the end of the decade, should be slashed. I wouldn’t place much confidence in his campaign pledge to cut welfare to fund defence.

Maybe he’ll find a few more billions for defence than Starmer has been able to, but it won’t be enough. There’ll be no unbreakable commitment to increase the defence budget to 3 per cent of GDP by 2030, or 3.5 per cent by 2035, in line with most European Nato partners.

Where is the change of which Burnham boasts? Whether Miliband is moved to the Treasury or stays as Energy Secretary, there will be no relaxation of net zero policies (such as those banning future North Sea oil exploration and extraction) which are throttling economic growth.

Burnham has said that he’ll observe the fiscal rules devised by Reeves, though during a recent edition of BBC Two’s Newsnight the self-satisfied orchestrator of a political coup appeared not to know what they are.

They state that day-to-day spending should be matched by tax revenues, and the Government should only borrow to invest. Burnham has no option but to observe the rules if he wants the bond markets to go on lending the Government tens of billions.

Even so, government borrowing is out of control. It surged to £23.3billion in May, driven partly by higher interest payments, which was 30 per cent higher than in the same month a year ago. It far exceeded the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast of £17.7billion.

Our economic position is so perilous that, even with an increase in taxes, there isn’t the remotest possibility of Burnham having the huge sums of money with which he hopes to transform Britain.

The land tax on which he has set his heart, as a further way of soaking the rich, won’t produce dividends in the foreseeable future because it will depend on lengthy property valuations that will take years.

In a word, nothing will change for the better, and some things will change for the worse. Angela Rayner will return to the Cabinet and dream up a further tranche of workers’ rights, which will serve to hobble small and medium-sized businesses even more.

Despite winning in Makerfield, where many indulgent voters see him as a charismatic local man, Andy Burnham’s popularity ratings have plummeted in recent weeks among the wider population, which is less susceptible to his alleged charms.

His popularity rating stood at 9 per cent towards the end of April. Now, according to polls, it has plummeted to minus 11 points. Forty-one per cent of voters say they now have an unfavourable view of him, while only 30 per cent are favourable.

It is certain, as voters see the unelected Prime Minister breaking promises made in the 2024 manifesto, and as it becomes obvious he is unable to bring about his much-vaunted changes, that he will become far more disliked than he is now.

And here there is an important distinction between him and Starmer. The outgoing Prime Minister may be the most unpopular leader in history but, being by nature stolid and phlegmatic, he has managed to cope with the barrage of barbs constantly heaped on him.

If he were a boxer, he would absorb punch after punch on the ropes, and go on desperately defending himself. Only the desertion of almost the entire Cabinet has finally managed to dislodge him.

Burnham is different. He yearns to be loved and appreciated. He is like a bouncy puppy longing to be picked up and hugged. He is not emotionally equipped for the contempt coming his way.

The word ‘psychodrama’ has been overused in recent weeks. It doesn’t begin to cover the storm awaiting Andy Burnham, who will be as unpopular as Sir Keir Starmer by Christmas.