Two unusual things occurred during Andy Burnham’s speech in Manchester today. One was that he described London as “the world’s greatest capital city”, marking a considerable shift from his usual characterisation of it as synonymous with all the things he has long persuaded his local electoral base to resent and dislike. The other was that I uttered the words “oh, piss off” only once while he was delivering it.
It was the speech of a politician who wants and needs to cement the confidence of the Labour MPs and members whose leader he is likely to be in just a few weeks’ time, and who appears to recognise that continuing to practice “north-south divide” grievance politics, as he has done so profitably for years, would look a bit odd while also preaching the virtues of national unity and collaboration, and when pledging to bring about “good growth in every postcode” in the land.
Striking, too, was his indictment not of “London” as a boo-word symbol of all that is unfair on “the North”, but his specifying of “Westminster and Whitehall” when singling out the need for big changes in the culture of national government in the form of moving “power from the centre” like never before.
What, though, might the big themes Burnham sketched out in his speech do for London and for Londoners? I had been told of “initial chats” between City Hall and the Burnham operation about better-equipping the capital for dealing with its housing problems and for boosting further education and skills training – two areas Sir Sadiq Khan and the boroughs alike would dearly love to have more control over – and this seemed to be confirmed in Burnham’s speech.
Having advocated greater powers for rural, de-industrialised and coastal areas to “address issues specific to them”, he said, “and, yes, more powers for London too, over education and housing, so that London can do more for itself”. His “greatest capital city” compliment followed. Gasp. There was even a round of applause.
Burnham’s embrace of the capital did not go near acknowledging the undeniable – and yet so frequently denied – vital importance of its economy to that of the entire nation and its public finances. Rather, he said that “the stark imbalance in resources between national government and local government” is “holding back growth” and that this was “bad for everywhere” including “London and the south east”. The whole country, he said, “suffers when the regions and nations are not meeting their potential, and Londoners are left with an overheated economy and an overcrowded housing market”.
There was a lot in his speech about battles with central government that London government could relate to: exasperation with Whitehall’s profound, default reluctance to give away even a fraction of its decision-making capacity, and its preoccupation with its own internal struggles is often expressed by veterans of City Hall. Those days, Burnham boldly said “are over for good”.
Big promise. In what forms will it be kept? “The change will be driven through the Prime Minister’s office,” Burnham said, “in an extended operation based here in Manchester” to be called “Number 10 North”. But though based in Manchester, its job would be “to make power flow into the Midlands, into the South West, into the east of England and, yes, into London, as I said before, as much as into the North East, Yorkshire and the Humber and here in the North West”, not forgetting Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It would be “the nerve centre of a re-wired Britain” and “the conduit through which we redistribute power and resources across the UK” and “co-ordinate all parts of government”.
This raises a whole host of questions. Is it necessary, practical or efficient to set up what sounds like an large outpost of Whitehall at the other end of England in order to implement a devolution revolution? If Whitehall is to be reformed, why can’t a reformed Whitehall do it? Does a branch of national government become better equipped to empower Norwich or Birmingham or Bristol simply by not being based in London any more?
We’ve heard claims about the virtues of relocating civil service capacity to the regions many times before, from everyone from Michael Gove to Pat McFadden. Does it really make a difference to the implementation of national government policy? Can devolution only happen if there is also decentralisation, which isn’t the same thing? Perhaps we should also keep in mind that even long-term advocates of devolution are careful to warn that it isn’t guaranteed to bring success.
Still, these are early days in the Burnham ascendancy. And let’s rejoice, at least for now, in the novel experience of the “King of the North” not painting “London” as the enemy.
Follow Dave Hill on Bluesky and at LinkedIn. Photo from BBC News.
OnLondon.co.uk is funded by sales of publisher and editor Dave Hill’s twice-weekly newsletter On London Extra. To start receiving it, become a paying subscriber to Dave’s personal Substack. Thanks.