## Burnham’s ‘Manchesterism’ got him to No 10 – but will it work for the UK?
**By Faisal Islam, Economics editor**
The unlikely journey of Andy Burnham from city hall to Number 10, propelled by a platform of what his supporters have dubbed “Manchesterism,” marks a seismic shift in British politics. It’s a testament to the power of a devolved, place-based agenda. But the question now echoing through the corridors of power – and indeed, every regional think-tank – is whether this successful local template can truly be scaled up to govern the entire United Kingdom.
Burnham’s rise was built on a potent cocktail of strategic public investment, empowered local leadership, and a fervent belief in the ability of cities and regions to solve their own problems. In Greater Manchester, this meant taking control of local buses, piloting innovative social care models, driving regeneration projects, and establishing a clearer regional voice on everything from skills to net-zero targets. It offered tangible improvements and a compelling alternative to what many perceived as a distant and disconnected Westminster.
For many, it was the ultimate “levelling up” strategy – one driven from the ground up, not imposed from Whitehall.
### What is ‘Manchesterism’ on a national scale?
Translating this ethos nationally means fundamentally re-drawing the map of power in the UK. At its heart, “Manchesterism” implies:
1. **Radical Devolution:** Far more than just administrative delegation, it suggests genuine fiscal devolution, allowing regions to raise and retain a greater share of taxes, giving them real financial autonomy to invest in local priorities.
2. **Strategic Regional Investment:** A national industrial strategy built around empowering regional innovation hubs, rather than a top-down approach. Think tailored support for advanced manufacturing in the Midlands, green energy in the North East, or life sciences in the Golden Triangle and beyond.
3. **Local Control over Public Services:** Expanding the Greater Manchester model of integrated transport, social care, and housing policy to other metropolitan areas and even county regions, enabling solutions that fit local needs and demographics.
4. **Strong Metro Mayors/Regional Leaders:** Elevating the role of elected regional leaders, providing a clear figurehead for accountability and advocacy, akin to Burnham’s own impact.
### The Optimists’ Case: Unleashing Potential
Proponents argue that a national embrace of “Manchesterism” could unleash a wave of productivity and innovation. By empowering regions to make decisions closer to the people they serve, it could:
* **Boost Productivity:** Local leaders understand local economic strengths and weaknesses better than central government, allowing for more targeted investment in skills, infrastructure, and R&D.
* **Reduce Regional Inequality:** Tailored strategies can address the specific challenges facing diverse areas, rather than one-size-fits-all policies that often exacerbate disparities.
* **Increase Democratic Accountability:** More power at a local level means voters have a clearer sense of who is responsible for the services they receive and the economic direction of their area.
* **Foster Innovation:** A network of empowered regions could become hotbeds of policy experimentation, with successful models potentially replicated elsewhere.
### The Skeptics’ Quandary: Scale, Funding, and Capacity
However, the transition from a successful regional strategy to a national blueprint is fraught with both immense opportunity and significant peril. As economics editor, my concerns centre on several key areas:
1. **The UK is Not Greater Manchester:** The diversity of the UK is immense. What works for a large, industrial post-industrial conurbation with a strong identity might not easily translate to rural counties, smaller towns, or regions with very different economic structures and historical grievances. Can you create a “Cornwallism” or an “East Anglia-ism” with the same coherence and impact?
2. **The Funding Conundrum:** True devolution requires significant fiscal autonomy. Where will the money come from? If regions are to retain more taxes, what is the impact on central government finances? Without a fundamental re-think of the UK’s highly centralised tax system, ‘devolution’ risks becoming merely a devolution of responsibility without the necessary financial levers. Local authorities, even with elected mayors, have historically struggled with inadequate funding from central government – a ‘begging bowl’ culture that Burnham himself railed against.
3. **Capacity and Governance Gaps:** Greater Manchester benefited from strong political leadership and a relatively mature institutional ecosystem. Not all regions or local authorities possess the same capacity, leadership talent, or even the established partnership networks needed to effectively manage vastly expanded powers and budgets. There’s a risk of creating a patchwork of varying effectiveness, potentially widening gaps between ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ regions.
4. **National Coherence vs. Regional Autonomy:** How does a truly ‘Manchesterist’ UK maintain national economic coherence? What about national infrastructure projects, defence, or inter-regional trade policy? There’s a delicate balance to strike between empowering regions and ensuring the country still functions as a unified economic entity, avoiding fragmentation or destructive inter-regional competition.
5. **The Westminster Trap:** Will a Westminster government truly cede the power necessary for “Manchesterism” to flourish nationally? Previous attempts at devolution have often been characterised by central government retaining ultimate control, particularly over purse strings, leading to frustration and limited impact. The political will to relinquish power, even by a Prime Minister who benefited from it, is always the acid test.
### Conclusion: A Bold Experiment
Andy Burnham’s ascent to No 10 is a powerful indictment of the status quo and a compelling argument for a more decentralised Britain. The success of ‘Manchesterism’ in its birthplace is undeniable.
However, moving from a city-region experiment to a national economic architecture requires immense care, strategic vision, and an unwavering commitment to genuine empowerment, not just rhetoric. The UK stands at a pivotal moment, poised between the centralising tendencies of its past and the decentralising promise of a ‘Manchesterised’ future.
Whether this bold experiment can truly transform the entire nation, or simply expose the limits of localised power in a deeply centralised state, will define the Burnham premiership – and perhaps the future economic geography of the UK.
