Andy Burnham's Manchesterism is a bold and ambitious vision for the future of British politics and the economy. It's a call to action that promises to revolutionize the way we govern and manage our resources. But the question remains: Can Burnham turn this ideology into a practical offer for government? And what does it mean for the country's future?
The Rise of Manchesterism
Manchesterism, as Burnham presents it, is a response to the failures of neoliberalism. It's a philosophy that emphasizes the importance of public control over essential assets, a closer partnership between the state and business, and a significant expansion of devolution. This ideology is a far cry from its 19th-century counterpart, which was synonymous with free trade.
Burnham's approach is grounded in his experience as the mayor of Greater Manchester. He has achieved remarkable success in the city, bringing essential assets like the bus network under greater public control and fostering a closer relationship between the state and business. This pragmatic version of Manchesterism is a framework for a more productive relationship between the state and business, as Burnham has been known for his business-friendly policies.
The Challenge of Implementation
However, the task of turning Manchesterism into a practical offer for government is immense. Burnham's team is small, and there are numerous players vying for influence. The fear of spooking the bond market and causing borrowing costs to soar is a significant constraint, as is the risk of handing the seat to Reform UK. This is evident in Burnham's statement that he will stick to Rachel Reeves' fiscal rules, meaning any further expansion of public spending will have to be funded by tax increases.
The Influence of Theory and Practice
Burnham's theory of change is deeply rooted in his practical experience in Manchester. His close adviser, Neal Lawson, describes him as an 'organic intellectual,' drawing his ideas from the very practice of running the city. This is in contrast to many political figures who rely on books and theoretical frameworks. The intellectual work behind Manchesterism has been influenced by Common Wealth's Mathew Lawrence and the economist Alex Williams, whose ideas are more radical than what Burnham can achieve in the short term without a strong electoral mandate.
Public Ownership and the Cost of Living
One of the key aspects of Manchesterism is the idea of public ownership. Lawrence's work argues that privatization is at the root of Britain's problems and that essential services should be directly owned and operated by the state. This is a significant departure from the current system, where profit is often the primary incentive. Burnham, however, has not explicitly advocated for nationalization but rather for 'public control' with more government involvement in the way these services are run and funded.
The debate around public ownership is particularly relevant in the context of the cost of living crisis. Some on the left, like Josh Simons, Burnham's outgoing MP, argue for public control of essential services like energy and water. They cite Berlin as an example, where the local water company was brought back into municipal control with a board that includes worker representation. Others on the right fear that Lawrence's approach is too theoretical and lacks a tangible offer for voters.
The Road Ahead
Burnham's team faces an extraordinary challenge in winning the byelection and potentially preparing for power. They will need to address tough questions about how Manchesterism can be applied in government through specific policy levers, especially in fiscally constrained circumstances. The first test of their theories on public ownership is likely to be Thames Water, the stricken utility for which the government is seeking a new buyer.
In conclusion, Andy Burnham's Manchesterism is a compelling and ambitious vision for the future. However, the challenge of turning it into a practical offer for government is significant. The success of this ideology will depend on Burnham's ability to navigate the constraints of the political landscape, balance theoretical ideals with practical realities, and address the pressing issues of public ownership and the cost of living.
