Radical realism or radical vibes? Burnham is not the messiah

A good deception is one that makes you believe. Enticing, glimmering, and wholly effective at hooking you in. Until recently, most on the left were united behind a single aim: punish Labour’s relentless shift to the right, not just with intense scrutiny, but with the prospect of displacing them as the main force on the left entirely. However, as with any good political plot twist, one giant earthquake rumbling from the north has changed the landscape completely.

Enter Andy Burnham, the so-called ‘King of the North’: the darling child of the Labour Party who appears wholly unaffected by its burning reputation. In spite of his campaign promises being gradually watered down, many have made it their life’s mission to ensure Burnham gets into parliament. Even Caroline Lucas, former leader of the Greens, has called for her party to step aside for his ascendency. The myth goes like this: Burnham will be the knight in shining armour that will cleanse the rot of the Labour Party and prevent the country being handed over to Reform.

Like any good myth, there are elements of this that are correct, but nevertheless fallible. There are three things a Burnham premiership could change: further nationalising public services, easing the housing burden, and devolving power away from Westminster.

If the renationalisation of rail is anything to go by as a model, private companies will not be pushed out of the equation entirely

Firstly, nationalisation. On the surface, it is exactly as the tin reads: bringing major services back into public ownership, ensuring they are run for national benefit and not solely corporate profits. ‘Not solely’ is the key phrase to pay attention to. If the renationalisation of rail is anything to go by as a model, private companies will not be pushed out of the equation entirely. Instead, the government will simply have the power to pull certain levers and streamline service delivery. Private contractors will still be involved in operations themselves. There is reason to be optimistic regardless: such a model has begun to deliver high-quality transport for Manchester.

But there is also reason not to trust it elsewhere, the biggest example of this being the NHS. Since the 1980s, the NHS has been on a slow and steady course towards increasing private involvement. The results should speak for themselves. Operating costs have skyrocketed, billions are bled out the system for corporate profiteering, and inequality within the healthcare system has increased significantly. The vast majority get it worse, only those who can pay for more actually benefit. This is why, even with successive years of budget increases, the NHS is still crumbling as a service. Introducing its antithesis was its downfall. Even if partial ‘nationalisation’ gives the government a leading voice, it cannot be guaranteed that it will use such a voice effectively. Private water companies, such as Thames Water, have already operated under a similar model of government oversight, which has completely fallen through.

Secondly, housing. Even before getting onto policies, Burnham’s tenure as mayor of Greater Manchester gives immediate red flags. It is undeniable that Burnham’s policies have greatly improved the city’s economy overall, but he has failed to move past the neoliberal realpolitik that has kept the so-called “asset economy” alive. Burnham has continued Manchester’s modern legacy of coordinating closely with private developers. This includes the Greater Manchester Authority’s investment of an eye-watering £615 million in taxpayer’s money to Daren Whitaker: a property mogul now based in Monaco, who is more focused on high-rise skyscrapers than affordable housing. Social mobility remains severely hampered, and wages are still unable to keep up with the rapidly ballooning housing crisis. In Manchester itself, most private renters spend 45% of their income on just rent. Such a reality may be beneficial for London hopefuls seeking an escape from the metropolis, but it has conversely forced many working-class Mancunians out of the areas driving the city’s wealth.

But, if he’s been given nine years already to solve the issue in just Manchester, there’s no reason to believe he’ll solve it now

Burnham has acknowledged that housing is a still a major crisis both nationally and in Manchester and has called for ramped up social housing. But, if he’s been given nine years already to solve the issue in just Manchester, there’s no reason to believe he’ll solve it now. Burnham reflects a long-standing and well-evidenced trend among ‘Blairwashed’ local Labour authorities: granting developer profits while offering nothing to those struggling day-to-day. Such an approach has already contributed to Labour losing several London councils to the Greens, where the effects of this can be seen at their worst.

To give Burnham some merit, he has not ruled out reforming council tax, to ensure wealthier properties are taxed fairly. While unpopular with many homeowners, this would begin to resolve the housing crisis by curbing asset inflation, bringing it back in line with wage growth. Nevertheless, these effects would only be seen long-term and cannot provide serious benefit without pairing up growth in social housing. But again, if Burnham’s record is anything to go by, don’t be surprised if he ultimately decides not to upset the status quo.

Finally, devolution. This is Burnham’s closest thing to a silver lining, something which may genuinely benefit the country. Burnham’s political philosophy of ‘Manchesterism’ involves looking beyond Westminster for governing the UK. Rather than hinge on short-term electoral cycles under pressure to deliver nationally, Burnham instead wants more areas to function like Manchester: local-led, and under long-term plans that don’t depend on shaky semantics. Given hyper-centralisation and a lack of funding to local councils have majorly contributed to the UK’s decline, the blueprint for resolving this is solid.

Manchester’s growth does not root out inequality or the structural problems of neoliberal economics, it just makes them less obvious and less painful

Nevertheless, the execution is highly variable and could potentially be counterproductive. As mentioned, while this style of governance can indeed boost local economies, if it’s done to benefit certain interest groups over others, it can struggle to deliver meaningful change for populations as a whole. Manchester’s growth does not root out inequality or the structural problems of neoliberal economics, it just makes them less obvious and less painful. If individuals decide to bet on Burnham delivering a less centralised Britain, they should concurrently pick their local governments very carefully. People-led governance, not managerialism, is the only way devolution will truly solve the UK’s crisis of centralised power.

Even assuming good from all three of these, there is no reason to be certain that Burnham will deliver on this agenda in government. As mentioned, Burnham has already U-turned on major policy points, including standing down on trans rights, ruling out introducing proportional representation, and backing Shabana Mahmood’s controversial immigration reforms. Burnham’s commitment to following Reeves’ fiscal rules also limits the extent to which he can seriously invest in the services Britain desperately needs. And before all this, he had a record for flip-flopping politically: being a firm Blairite and supporting the Iraq War in Westminster, and only later pivoting somewhat leftwards as Mayor. Burnham is very good at changing his tone when it’s politically convenient, but this should make any pledges unreliable and subject to change.

Ultimately, while Labour is on the verge of changing its face, it has still very much lost its soul. Before Starmer became Prime Minister, he campaigned his way into the Labour leadership on an openly socialist platform: seriously taxing the wealthy, democratising power, and abolishing tuition fees to name a few. Why is it that he’s so conveniently abandoned this? It is not simply ‘the reality of governance’, it’s ulterior interests. Starmer, and many major Labour politicians, now serve the interests of their corporate donors and not Labour’s traditional base. It’s the same rot that caused Corbyn to face constant assault from his own party’s fifth column, and led to his eventual removal. Put simply, Labour’s mutated DNA will resist any genuine attempt to shift the party leftwards, and the evidence suggests that no one should completely trust Burnham for that reason alone.

Even if the [Green] party still needs sandpapering, and further reach electorally, this guarantees that the result will deliver governance and public services that are robust, not just aesthetically comforting

One can make the argument that even with these caveats, better the devil you know than to gamble with the Greens. This is an argument I will properly address in another article, but to summarise, I firmly believe that, even with the uphill battle, achieving a national Green government is possible. More importantly, if the Greens aren’t taking any shady donations now, they are very unlikely to shore off any money into needless profiteering down the line. Even if the party still needs sandpapering, and further reach electorally, this guarantees that the result will deliver governance and public services that are robust, not just aesthetically comforting.

If Starmer were sitting on top of a rigged economy, Burnham will merely turn down the heat while still leaving the vast majority with burns (pun not intended). “Radical realism” is not floating the illusion of change in the hopes that voters will take the plunge again, it is merely radical vibes built on vague promises and little reassurance. Even the most optimistic take on a Burnham premiership still leaves much to be desired. It is far from the action needed to both fix the country and bring back socialism as a genuine force in British politics. For all those reasons, Burnham is not the Messiah, and he will not save Labour. He might buy it some time, but he will not stop its inevitable collapse. The discussion must return to where it was prior to May: how do we all move on from the shattered rosette?