Resigning as UK prime minster and leader of the Labour party, Keir Starmer said he accepted, “with good grace”, that the party does not think he is best placed to lead them into the next general election.
Following the election of Andy Burnham in Makerfield, it’s also clear who most Labour MPs want to replace him. It’s now more than possible that “King of the North” could be invited by the real king (Charles) to form a new government within weeks.
This momentous situation begs two questions: what is Andy Burnham actually about in terms of plans, priorities and personality? And, what are the main challenges that may well trip him up?
There are two distinct levels to Project Andy: Manchesterism and Burnhamism. The former encompasses his policy vision, revolving around the notion of “business friendly socialism” and place-based politics. Manchester’s integrated Bee Network of integrated public transport has been held up as an example of the city’s positive and optimistic political economy under Burnham’s leadership.
Read more:
Andy Burnham: what has made the king of the north so popular?
On a national level, this Manchesterism approach looks like emphasising devolution of power to the English regions and a rejection of neoliberalism. It would be replaced by a new model of public governance in which communities up and down the UK have more control over the basic essentials of life: housing, utilities, transport and education.
A second policy dimension revolves around shifting to a preventative mindset. From health to housing, the role of the government cannot and should not be to keep spending more and more. But instead, to invest in tackling the root causes of key societal challenges. Build more social housing, invest in early interventions around physical and mental health, don’t deify university education and dare to innovate.
A third (and possibly defining) aspect is Burnham’s focus on tackling social inequality. This was evident in his response to Tony Blair’s recent “playing with fire” essay-cum-intervention. Burnham’s powerful rebuttal: “If you are not rooting your analysis in the fact that people are unable to live and that things that were taken for granted are no longer affordable, then you are not understanding what’s going on.”
It’s this ground-level understanding of real people, living real lives well away from the internalised gossip and gaming of Whitehall and Westminster, that Burnham now seeks to bring to national politics. It’s also why his recent success in the Makerfield byelection suggests he can draw traditional Labour voters back from the false promises and pitfalls of Reform.
Manchesterism v Burnhamism
At a deeper level, it is possible to separate the policy aims of Manchesterism from a political project that is potentially far more interesting. What has been overlooked in the excitement of recent weeks is that Burnhamism is not actually about the Labour party or the next general election.
Burnhamism represents a political ideology founded on the need to fundamentally change British constitutional government. There has been no attempt to hide this level of mega-political ambition. Burnham made it explicit in his recent electoral success: “If you can build a new politics, you can actually bring through big changes … Westminster is not working. I am calling for a completely different way of doing things, for a completely different political culture”.
Burnhamism represents a complete rejection of the traditionally centralised, elitist, two-party, Whitehall-knows-best Westminster model. It seeks to shift towards a power-sharing model that can accommodate long-term strategic policy-making.
Far-reaching devolution is part of this. And it is promoted alongside the need for electoral reform, in the form of proportional representation (which is itself attracting increasing public support).
Manchesterism and Burnhamism are clearly interwoven. Tackling entrenched socioeconomic inequalities will itself demand a redistribution of power that the current system was historically designed to sustain.
And then, of course, Burnhamism has a very specific performative dimension. There’s a certain folksy “local lad” hero element that feeds off the music and brashness of Manchester. The casual clothes carefully selected to represent not a traditional politician, but a popular (not populist) “bloke” operating outside the mainstream (tie-wearing) bubble. If Manchester wasn’t so far from Westminster, you could almost imagine him turning up on a Vespa or vintage Lambretta.
Burnham’s biggest challenge
It’s common in politics that the biggest obstacles are also the biggest opportunities. This is certainly true for Burnham as he vies to become the next prime minister. Other leadership contenders may emerge, the machinery of government certainly needs more than a little administrative tinkering if it is to deliver a radical agenda, and Nigel Farage and Reform remain a potent political foe.
And yet, his biggest challenge is more basic: forging a clear connection with the British public. If Starmer failed to do this, it was because he was too miserable early on and could never articulate a clear story about what he was doing as prime minister or why. U-turns and self-inflicted wounds only added to a generalised sense of governing incompetence that proved impossible to shake off.
The opportunity and the challenge for Burnham revolves around the need to craft a clear and careful message of hope and optimism about what he wants to do and why. But he must do so without over-inflating the public’s expectations – or failure becomes, to some extent, inevitable.
