Burnham bets on returning to Westminster. In politics, personal ambition is not a sin; it is often the condition for existence. In fact, one should be wary of those who say they entered politics only because the country asked them to.
But the real question does not concern only Burnham. It concerns Labour. Can Burnham stop Reform UK? Can he pull the party out of the quagmire it fell into just months after a crushing electoral victory? Can he restore political meaning to a majority that seems to have worn out almost immediately?
Makerfield will say something decisive. If Burnham wins, the game within Labour reopens. If Reform UK wins, a completely new phase of British politics begins. Farage knows this: that’s why he already speaks like a prime minister, even to the international press.
But who is Andy Burnham? What are the foundations of his popularity among the electorate? And why does his rise to Westminster scare the wing of the Labour party close to Starmer?
ALL OR ALMOST ALL ABOUT BURNHAM
Before becoming one of the most recognizable critics of the “Westminster bubble,” Burnham was a fully internal product of London’s New Labour.
He began his career in the capital, quickly climbing the party ranks: first as special adviser to the Culture Minister in 1998, then in 2001 as MP for the Leigh constituency, in his home area, not far from Makerfield.
During the 16 years he sits in Parliament, he ranges between the right and the moderate left, the so-called soft Left.
For this reason, the most critical commentators still label him as a careerist who does not hesitate to sacrifice ideological consistency in order to maximize his political success. In this, perhaps, there is some truth. Or perhaps, simply, during his years in London, Burnham internalized and became a prisoner of a mentality entirely internal to Westminster Labour.
BURNHAM’S GOVERNMENT EXPERIENCE
During the governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, Burnham held important positions, from undersecretary to chief secretary to the Treasury, to Culture Minister and finally Health Minister.
These were years in which he did not shy away from New Labour discipline, even when it meant cuts to public spending and support for processes of reorganization of the health system that would pave the way for increasingly advanced forms of privatization.
In 2010 he attempted his first leadership climb. But Ed Miliband won, and Burnham came fourth out of five candidates. In the following five years, he moved towards the left of the party, trying to gain support among the Labour base by mounting harsh criticisms precisely against cuts to the National Health Service.
At the same time, however, he abstained from voting on the Welfare reform, based on austerity, introduced by the Conservative government of the time. In 2015 he tried again to climb the party, but this time he was defeated by Jeremy Corbyn.
Despite the sting of defeat, Burnham entered Corbyn’s shadow cabinet only to completely change course a few years later.
In 2017 he was elected mayor of Greater Manchester – the first experiment after London of devolution on a broad metropolitan scale in England.
And it is precisely by returning home, to northern England, that Burnham manages to shake off the doctrine of ‘Westminsterism’ – the inability to look beyond the procedures, mechanisms, and power games of London – and to reinvent himself again as an interpreter of politics rooted in territories, public services, and communities. This time convincingly.
THE MAYORAL PERIOD
Many close to him recall how at first the “London Burnham” struggled to adapt to the functioning of Greater Manchester, where the mayor chairs an executive formed by representatives of the 10 municipalities in the area.
But Burnham soon gets a feel for it and, above all, learns firsthand the importance and value of devolution: starting from the territory to build a direct and more effective relationship between local communities and political institutions, bringing politics closer to citizens and, therefore, bringing citizens closer to politics. Place before politics. Putting the territory before party politics becomes Burnham’s mantra.
THE MOVES DURING THE PANDEMIC
Burnham’s reinvention was completed before the eyes of the entire country in 2020, during the pandemic. Standing on the steps of the Manchester Library, in jeans and a parka, the mayor of Greater Manchester performed a simple yet extraordinary act: he spoke directly to Prime Minister Boris Johnson opposing the harsh restrictions imposed by the government in the area, claiming funds for his region to support local businesses that Downing Street was unwilling to grant.
And even though the Conservative government did not back down, Burnham’s words resonated with local communities. For the first time, a political leader openly defended Greater Manchester giving voice to the increasingly widespread perception that Westminster had become estranged from the rest of the country. The next day, the scene was on the front pages of all local and national newspapers.
Slogans praising the North and its autonomy from the center began to spread on social media. As a sign of appreciation, the famous local artist Stanley Chow produced a stylized portrait of Andy Burnham, the same that now adorns the streets of Makerfield. And Burnham was nicknamed “King of the North,” a nickname that has stuck with him ever since.
Burnham thus became a leader of the North and for the North. But one who also knows how to network and build community relationships in the area he governs: with citizens and civil society, with entrepreneurs and with other local politicians. It is from this experience that the Burnham brand was born, or, as he prefers to call it today, Manchesterism.
“MANCHESTERISM” (AND ITS CONTRADICTIONS)
Burnham’s Manchesterism is simultaneously a philosophy, a political style, and an economic development model inspired by the success of Greater Manchester.
It refers to a business-friendly socialism, but presented as an alternative to neoliberalism and the push for privatization and centralization of political power, as well as to the socioeconomic inequalities that accompany it.
It calls for a way of doing politics in antithesis to that of Westminster (and the Starmer government), aiming at creating an alternative political culture from below, from the territories and local communities precisely.
Manchesterism is rooted in devolution, long-term planning, and what Burnham has defined as “good growth.”
BURNHAM’S ECONOMIC IDEAS
In practice, he advocates the use of public ownership to govern the provision of essential goods (such as transport, housing, energy) to expand supply, reduce costs, and make them more accessible.
A model close to the so-called “foundational economy” theorized by the Foundational Economy Collective and economists like Karel Williams or Julie Froud, which Burnham has implemented in Manchester.
To date, in fact, the political success of which the mayor is most proud has been bringing the Greater Manchester bus network back under public control, introducing a fare cap of £2, and guaranteeing free access to users up to 18 years old.
A more efficient, extended, and affordable public transport network means improving access to work, services, education, and vocational training, especially for residents of poorer areas. It means creating a connected metropolitan area in which not only the center prospers. According to Burnham, this is precisely why Manchester has become the fastest-growing area in the United Kingdom.
Manchesterism is proof that an economic recovery strategy capable of addressing regional inequalities between North and South can and must start from below: from the territory, local communities, and devolved institutions equipped with real powers and resources. It is therefore both the assessment of Burnham’s experience as mayor and the pivot of the campaign with which he aims to reach Downing Street and restore citizens’ trust in politics.
Burnham thus aims to transpose the Greater Manchester model on a national level: developing a more collaborative approach capable of freeing the country from the many crises that beset it, and restoring citizens’ trust in politics.
However, criticisms of this vision are not lacking. On the one hand, his detractors argue that Burnham simply inherited, and did not create, the “Greater Manchester model,” whose roots lie in the collaborative model developed by local administrators in the decades before his rise to mayor.
Furthermore, some contest the reference to socialism and the foundational economy, emphasizing how Greater Manchester was not reinvented thanks to bottom-up reindustrialization, but by shifting towards a knowledge economy also supported by an urban regeneration model driven by the real estate sector.
Manchester city center, now covered with skyscrapers, was reborn thanks to investments from international entrepreneurs, enriching more Chinese investors than local communities.
Also due to these contradictions, part of the political class defines Burnham’s Manchesterism as a vague, contradictory model that is difficult to extend to the rest of the country. More broadly, criticisms remain from those who have not forgotten Burnham’s past and see him as a “political weather vane” that moves according to his personal ambitions.
Andy Burnham smiles in the face of these criticisms and relentlessly continues his mission to bring Manchesterism to London.
(Excerpt from the blog Notes by Stefano Feltri)
