Political careers often end when circumstances demand qualities that a politician cannot supply. That seems especially true of Sir Keir Starmer. On Monday, he stepped down as Labour leader, hours before Andy Burnham arrived at Westminster to take his seat as MP for Makerfield.

Sir Keir’s achievements were real. He won a large parliamentary majority in 2024, provided more cash for the NHS and was steadfast in his support of Ukraine. He undoubtedly restored a measure of seriousness after years of Tory psychodrama. But the 2024 victory was always more brittle than it seemed: Labour’s vote actually fell from 2019 and Nigel Farage’s decision to stand candidates in 2024 fractured rightwing votes. Sir Keir won power; he did not change the political weather.

Although Mr Burnham is not yet Labour leader, the enthusiasm greeting him at Westminster suggested that many MPs regard his ascent as inevitable. If he were to enter Downing Street, Mr Burnham would become the seventh prime minister of the UK in 10 years. The Tory MP who shouted “he’s not the messiah” got laughs because it caught the mood: relief shading into perhaps unrealistic hope. But Mr Burnham is not Lenin arriving at Finland Station.

Sir Keir’s problem was that he offered incremental repair when the country wanted a moral vision. He could not explain what had gone wrong, who had benefited or what needed to change. Mr Burnham has a stronger grasp of the grievances that underpin politics. His enemies are legible and his story is simple enough for voters to repeat: Britain worked better before privatisation; London has taken too much power for itself; communities have been ripped off; public control can restore fairness and pride.

Reports that Mr Burnham wants to break with Treasury orthodoxy are welcome. Cutting budgets of unprotected departments while waiting for interest rates to fall is not a strategy; it is drift. The influential thinktank Compass, close to Mr Burnham, published a policy paper – The Productive State – on Monday arguing that the state should lower the cost of essentials through public investment, ownership and coordination of key services so that real disposable income rises without relying endlessly on state subsidies.

The authors, Mathew Lawrence and Alex Williams, say that energy and water should be placed under national public corporations, while housing and transport would be organised at the city-region scale, with care and local services run through municipal providers. The political attraction of such a programme is obvious: it links the cost of living, growth, fiscal plausibility and public control in a way that mirrors Mr Burnham’s rhetoric. It also gives him the machinery of civic pride and regional renewal.

No other MP looks able to get the 81 nominations required to enter the Labour leadership race. If Mr Burnham is to become prime minister without a contest, he should seek the scrutiny that a contest would otherwise provide. A lengthy session before parliament’s liaison committee would be a good place to start. The public will not reward Labour for creating a new model of the state. They will reward it for making life cheaper, easier and more secure. Mr Burnham’s politics has offered voters a compelling diagnosis of what has gone wrong in Britain. Unlike Sir Keir, he has a story. The question is whether it has a convincing ending.