Don Flynn argues that the experience of governing Manchester will not be enough if Andy Burnham is to put the UK on a new road forward. But finding the way to go is a task that has to be taken on by the entire democratic left, working to counter-balance the pressure he will come under from the right.
So, it isn’t going to be any sort of race to succeed Sir Keir Starmer as leader of the Labour Party and prime minister, but rather a stately progression towards a coronation on July 19th, with Andy Burnham being crowned King, not just of the North, but all he surveys.
What is on offer from the man who expects to be lodged in No.10 by the middle of July? We know it is something called “Manchesterism” – a thing honed into a political platform with its most distinguishing feature being that it is not “Westminsterism”. Hugger-mugger with the people, on easy personal terms with the local business community, able to consider the needs of a region with a manageable-sized population of three million rather than the UK’s bursting-at-the-seams 70 million, and consequently threaded with networks which facilitate easy communication between a canny politican and the folk he wants to be friends with – Manchesterism is a pastel-coloured Land of Oz which only needs its Wizard for smooth running.
Is it likely that Burnham’s nine years as mayor of Greater Manchester has equipped him with the skills and experience he will need in a new role as prime minister? People who know the city-region well are sceptical. Isaac Rose’s book of a few years ago points to a set of exceptional characteristics which make the place much less typical of the northern “left behind” town which the ex-mayor seems to want it to stand for. Rentier City presents the upswing in the good fortunes of the region as being driven by property inflation, which has driven many out of home security, either as owners or affordable renters, and promoted a significant crisis of homelessness. It is not all bad news, however; the fraction of the population which entered the new millennium with a foothold in home ownership have seen the value of their assets soar, with rents being charged increasing in one year alone by 20 per cent.
Anyone standing at the helm of the city over the past decade has other chunks of capital to draw on. With five universities within its realm, Manchester feels like a young city and one that craves entertainment. It’s legendary indie music scene and bohemian Gay Village, and with its world famous football clubs in the mix, it is a place to jump on a train and go to visit for a weekend, with credit card firmly in hand. In short, it looks in many ways a lot more like its great London nemesis than it does Kingston-on-Hull or nearby Stoke-on-Trent.
Under the influence of this glitter, a politician not paying sufficient attention could easily slip into favouring a version of neoliberalism which has supported the growth of the city since the turn of the millennium. There’s talk in the Burnham camp of his “business-friendly socialism”, which sounds unnervingly similar to the partnerships which New Labour attempted to forge twenty-five years ago. This is fair-weather social democracy that is good for the mild days when all of the graphs are curving upwards, not which falls apart when the job of the state suddenly becomes bailing out too-big-to-fail losers.
All this said, let’s not be too gloomy about what might be possible if the next few years do present chances for a renewal of something that looks like democratic socialist governance. The key thing here is that Burnham recognises that Manchesterism is not a totally reliable template for governing the whole of the UK, and this is especially the case when so much that has to be done is countering the growth in inequality and deep poverty, which is the real legacy of neoliberal politics and economics.
The additional worry about Burnham concerns not just whether Manchester really is such a reliable touchstone, but whether he can bust out of the restraints of a parliamentary system which does not give the same scope for innovating networking for ideas and influence outside of the mainstream bubble. This is the Westminster where public opinion polls crack the whip, where the policy elites tell you exactly what can and cannot be done, and where opponents invest more heavily in your humiliation and downfall than ever happens to the mayor of an English regional authority.
The fact is, Andy bends when it comes to these pressures, as those who had been hoping for more backbone when it comes to changing the fiscal rules, or opposing the hostile environment directed against immigrants, will testify. His learning during the time he has been out of parliament has not been one steady rise upwards, but a jagged set of ups and downs, which makes you feel he is really open to new ideas and willing to challenge the powers-that-be.
If this is to turn around, a lot will depend on the quality of the people he has around him in his senior ministerial team. There are talented people in the Parliamentary Party who haven’t yet been given the chance to flourish in jobs where their expertise and enthusiasm for change can be put to full use. Much will be learned about the type of PM Burnham will be when he begins to select who will occupy the senior roles in his government.
In addition, the position of left progressive political activists, working in civil society rather than government functions, will need to be upgraded in terms of their influence over policies and their implementation. Burnham’s proclivity for buckling is a strategic problem that needs to be tackled by matching the pressure to give in with an equal but opposite force working to go deeper and be more radical. People working on economic strategy are well aware of this, and we hope to see a resurgence of their energies to win arguments and bring about the sort of change that will reverse the growth in inequality and promote the public services and industrial innovation that is needed to bring about change.
But that is likely to be the medium to long-term policy activism that will be needed to guide a Burnham government in the time up to the next general election, due in 2029. There is also an immediate is the need to drag him back from the fundamental mistakes he is making in critical areas of policy, which will lose him the support of swathes of progressive public opinion. Foremost among these is the legacy of Starmer’s siding with Israel in the Gaza genocide and in backing the renewal of the hostile environment for migrants, which he seems to have committed himself to during the weeks of the Makerfield by-election. If we arrive in the autumn of 2026 with the sense that these two wars against human rights are continuing under a Burnham government, the game might finally be up for a revival of the social democratic tradition in Britain.