“I am going to give Britain the circuit-breaker it needs,” promised Andy Burnham on Monday as he outlined policy priorities in his first major speech since returning to Westminster.
At the heart of his pitch is a plan to deliver what he called “the biggest rebalancing of power our country has ever seen”, by devolving decisions on issues such as tax, infrastructure and job creation from Whitehall to local communities. The process will be spearheaded by “No. 10 North”, a new outpost of Downing Street based in Manchester that will serve as the “nerve centre of a rewired Britain”. Whitehall, he said, had to accept the reality that growth can only “be nurtured from the bottom up”.
What does Andy Burnham stand for?
This week, the presumptive PM promised the biggest council house building programme since the post-war period; and a “complete rethink” of the education system, to put academic and technical training on an equal footing. He also reiterated his pledge to bring essential services such as water and transport under greater public control, as part of a long-term plan to curb the cost of living and ensure “good growth in every British postcode”.
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
SUBSCRIBE & SAVE
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Latest Videos From
Burnham’s speech “hit the right notes”, said the Financial Times. Power has indeed become too concentrated in Whitehall, and Burnham’s focus on boosting young people’s technical skills and using public procurement to support the growth of UK companies makes sense. Less welcome was the “statist and industrial nostalgia” that coloured parts of the speech.
Burnham’s pledges to build more social housing and revive high streets will have resonated with voters, said The Guardian. Overall, it was an “appealing social-democratic pitch” that respected the importance of “good public infrastructure and local dignity”. It’s a “vision that could bring a country together”.
The audience lapped it up, said The Independent, but the speech left questions about how Burnham will square his plans with his commitment to maintaining Labour’s fiscal rules. It’s also worth noting that there’s “nothing economically magical about devolution, as the experience of Scotland and Wales demonstrates”. Regional autonomy is no panacea, agreed the Daily Mail. Look at the maladministration that recently sent Birmingham into bankruptcy. We need more detail about Burnham’s “woolly ideas”, but Makerfield’s new MP did not accept media questions after his speech.
How did he get into politics?
Burnham was born on 7 January 1970, in Aintree, Liverpool, and, one of three brothers, he grew up in Culcheth, near Warrington, between Manchester and Liverpool (he is a lifelong Everton supporter). His father, Kenneth, was a telephone engineer; his mother, Eileen, was a receptionist. A sporty child, he went to St Aelred’s, a Catholic secondary school in Newton-le-Willows, before studying English at Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, where he met his Dutch-born wife, Marie-France van Heel, with whom he has three children.
After a spell working for trade magazines including Tank World, in 1994 he took a job as a researcher for the MP Tessa Jowell, later the culture secretary. In 2001, he was elected as the MP for Leigh, Greater Manchester. He served as a junior minister in the Blair government, and as culture secretary and health secretary under Gordon Brown.
After being heckled at the 20th anniversary of the 1989 Hillsborough disaster, he became a campaigner for the victims’ families. In 2010, he stood for the Labour leadership but was beaten into fourth place by Ed Miliband; and in 2015, he came second to Jeremy Corbyn.
Could Manchesterism go nationwide?
Some argue that the term, Manchesterism, is so loosely defined as almost to be meaningless: that it is mostly about “vibes”, and falls far short of a policy agenda that could be translated to the national stage. Burnham is politically something of a shape-shifter; there is, allies admit, “a lot of thinking still to be done”.
We don’t know exactly what it would mean to bring transport, energy and water into “public control”, but nationalisation would certainly be vastly expensive. Burnham’s team have studied revenue-raising options, including the equalisation of capital gains tax with income tax, and higher taxes on landlords. He has also previously called for sweeping constitutional reforms, including the abolition of the House of Lords and the introduction of a more proportional voting system.
Would Burnham spook investors?
Burnham’s thumping victory in Makerfield “came and went without the bond market rout that Rachel Reeves’s backers had warned about”, said Heather Stewart in The Guardian. Gilt yields moved up, “but only modestly”. The relative calm was partly because a Burnham win “was already priced in”, and partly because “he took out the insurance policy” of loudly promising to stick by Reeves’s fiscal rules. His timing was also lucky: recent better-than expected inflation figures had eased market concerns about the impact of the Iran war. And since markets “are no fans of uncertainty”, the prospect of a coronation, rather than a drawn-out contest, appeals.
Still, from now on, “Burnham’s every pronouncement – and that of whoever he picks as chancellor – will be watched intently”. Reeves’s rules give scope for extra borrowing to invest, which might allow key utilities to be nationalised. But if a Burnham government cannot show “it can make ends meet” on day-to-day spending, expect trouble.
What do Burnham’s political views mean for everyone’s money?
Burnham says he’ll aim to deliver “the biggest change in our lifetimes to the way the country is run”. But change often comes at a price, said The Daily Telegraph – “and the bill could once again land with Britain’s already squeezed middle class”. Restructuring capital gains tax (CGT) looks a priority: Burnham is supportive of “equalising” capital gains and income tax rates. And he might also press ahead with levying CGT on inherited family homes. It’s unclear whether inheritance tax (IHT) would also be reformed – one bold idea is to scrap it in favour of a social care levy on inherited assets. But if IHT remains unchanged, grieving families could be hit with a “double levy”, notes the Begbies chartered accountancy firm, meaning “an effective 62% tax rate in certain cases”.
Burnham is a long-time advocate of property tax reform, said Karl Matchett in The Independent – suggesting as far back as 2010 that council tax should be reformed and that a “land value tax” (LVT) should replace stamp duty on property sales. “A move to tax the asset rather than the transaction” appears to be on his “radar”, said Tom Bill of Knight Frank. “He supports a proposal by campaign group Fairer Share… to replace stamp duty and council tax with a levy equivalent to 0.48% of a property’s value.” It won’t be popular with all. “Under the plan, landlords, developers, overseas buyers and second-home owners would pay more.”
Burnham is unlikely to be “good news for pensions”, said Tom McPhail in The Times. Although he’ll honour Labour’s 2024 manifesto pledge to keep the state pension triple lock (guaranteeing that payments rise annually in line with the highest of inflation, wages or 2.5%) in this Parliament, he’ll probably scrap it after a general election. Burnham’s economic adviser, Andy Haldane, meanwhile, has argued that “tens of billions of tax relief granted on pension contributions” should be conditional on schemes “investing more of their money in UK growth assets”. This is “idiocy on stilts” – “staggeringly difficult” to define and monitor. It’d be better “to abolish stamp duty on the purchase of UK shares”, thus eliminating the penalty the Exchequer now imposes on pension schemes backing UK companies.
