Australian political strategist Sir Lynton Crosby has always believed in the power of simplicity.

I remember 21 years ago in the 2005 general election he worked with Michael Howard to distil the Conservative manifesto into five two-word phrases. This was possibly a bit too simplified and ultimately it wasn’t enough to win the election, but we did all at least remember what the messages were!

A decade later came another Crosby phrase: "scrape the barnacles off the boat". The idea was another simple one. A core campaign strategy that stripped away distracting, or secondary policies to concentrate entirely on the most important issues. That year, 2015, Conservatives got a majority.

Labour adopted a different form of simplification before the 2024 election – the ‘Ming vase strategy’. With a commanding polling lead, its strategy was largely to avoid saying anything that put victory at risk. The manifesto contained relatively few ambitious commitments and focused on a few promises not to raise some taxes (but not others).

But when they finally entered Number 10 with a huge majority they didn't seem to know quite what they had wanted to get into government for - except not being the Conservatives.

The Government has since pursued a wide range of reforms and initiatives, many of which were not in their manifesto. Some have attracted support, but others, including the Family Farm Tax, proposals for an Overnight Visitor Levy, Local Government Reorganisation and the decision to withdraw Winter Fuel Payments from many pensioners – have proved far more controversial.

As the Government reset its agenda, Andy Burnham should take this moment as an opportunity to focus on what really matters to people, and ditch much of the rest.

The test should be straightforward. If a policy change is not getting people into work, easing the cost of living, or strengthening our national, economic or border security, then should we really be doing it?

There is some cause for hope. Mr Burnham's decision to scrap digital ID cards is a welcome example. In my recent survey, many East Hampshire residents said they opposed the policy, underlining the importance of focusing government effort on the issues people care about most.

But there are plenty more policies that should be offloaded. Take Local Government Reorganisation, for example. Under the current proposals, East Hampshire District would be split in two, bringing significant upheaval with little obvious benefit for local residents. We know that the Prime Minister is keen on devolution but this does not necessarily require sweeping structural reorganisation or the abolition of existing councils.

The proposed Overnight Visitor Levy is another example. Tourism and hospitality businesses are already facing significant pressures. Introducing another tax risks making the sector less competitive, discouraging visitors and ultimately threatening jobs. Manchester's accommodation levy was developed in partnership with the industry, whereas the new levy is not.

There are areas where Mr Burnham's apparent ambitions are welcome. His decision to place social care high on the agenda recognises one of the defining policy challenges of our time. His commitment to ending rough sleeping is also welcome, even if achieving that ambition in Manchester has proved harder than expected.

But tackling challenges on that scale requires focus. Governments have only so much political capital, administrative capacity and public goodwill. If the priority is growing the economy, reducing youth unemployment and bolstering security, then every distraction comes at a cost.

Sir Lynton Crosby's advice remains as relevant today as it was a decade ago. If the government wants to convince voters it is concentrating on what matters most, then perhaps it is time to scrape the barnacles off the boat.