Burnham: Devolution’s last best chance?

Desmond Clifford

The coronation of Andy Burnham, King of the North, is without precedent in the 300 years or so since Robert Walpole became Britain’s first recognised Prime Minister.

A couple of weeks back he was Mayor of Manchester; in another week or two he’ll be in Downing St. For all his evident popularity, it’s a bizarre mandate.

Burnham seems to have been around forever. He was first elected to parliament, barely in his thirties, in 2001 having previously served as a special adviser. Clean-cut and articulate, he was a New Labour poster-boy and rose rapidly through the ranks with ministerial experience at the Home Office, Treasury, Culture and, finally, as Secretary of State for Health.

His ministerial career was conventionally successful without being stellar. He was booed at the 20th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster in 2009 and used the experience to press for a second inquiry. At the 25th anniversary, Burnham was loudly applauded. This was probably his highest profile achievement, but he was hardly a household name.

He stood twice unsuccessfully for leadership of the Labour Party, with no great swell of support on either occasion. During one of those contests, I came across him in the Senedd on his own and looking lost. I asked if I could help and took him to where he needed to be. I remember an easy manner and natural friendliness.

When he left parliament in 2017 to stand for the new role of Mayor of Manchester nobody, least of all himself, expected to see Burnham in parliament again.

After a bland Westminster career, he was a huge and surprising success in Manchester. Natural cleverness combined with sharp political instincts and everyman appeal to make him wildly popular. His record on transport and housing was especially strong.

He was dubbed “King of the North” without irony, an incredible accolade in the cynical gaze of contemporary politics. His electoral support, as shown at the Makerfield by-election, comes from some of the same people who elsewhere are voting Reform. He is Britain’s most popular politician by some margin and uniquely so on the left.

Why, how? If you could bottle it, you’d make a fortune. Time, place and luck are everything in politics. With a small nudge of the dial, Rhun ap Iorwerth could be toiling obscurely as Westminster MP for Ynys Môn right now.

All politicians can do is be ready in case the cards fall. Burnham never gave up, bided his time – and the cards fell.

The obvious comparison, which Burnham would no doubt detest, is Boris Johnson. Johnson, too, was man who, for all the media hype around him, under-whelmed in his first stint in Westminster. Only as Mayor of London did he find the platform which truly worked and propelled him forward – ultimately towards Brexit and No 10.

Why did Manchester work so well for Burnham? He grabbed the powers available and exploited leverage at Westminster to squeeze maximum output from them. The mayoralties were established by Conservative governments, and they shared an interest in making them work. The Treasury released departmental budgets and devolved them to Manchester, allowing Burnham to frame policy coherently across transport, health, housing, training and policing. (It remains inexplicable – and a constitutional disgrace – why English mayors have policing powers, as do Scotland and N Ireland, but not Wales).

By using his powers vigorously and showing robustness towards the UK Government, Labour or Conservative, Burnham convinced Manchester’s people he was genuinely on their side. Welsh Labour, in contrast, tip-toed with cap in hand and agonised in the face of every humiliation inflicted by Whitehall, but still wouldn’t criticise it.

Manchester buzz

Burnham helped create a Manchester buzz which is palpable on the streets. There is talk of moving a chunk of Downing St’s operation up north, and why not? It’s a great idea, though it remains to be seen whether the Manchester vibe can be replicated elsewhere. It is said, very fairly, that we know little of Burnham’s ambitions as Prime Minister. His Labour supporters are taking an awful lot on trust while reasoning, correctly – surely – that he can’t be worse than Starmer.

Mark Drakeford was among the early movers on Burnham. As First Minister he cultivated a connection with Manchester and Liverpool and invited them to join his talks with the Irish Government in North Wales. Drakeford’s intention was to frame the North Wales economy as part of a continuum with booming Ireland on one side, and England’s most dynamic region on the other.

The thought was perfectly sound, and this is something the Welsh Government’s new Development Agency should pursue (the previous Welsh Government sometimes lacked adequate machinery to convert policy intention into practical outcome).

Following May’s elections Drakeford very explicitly supported Burnham’s return to Westminster to replace Starmer. For his pains, Wales’ last successful Labour First Minister was told to shut up by his own party’s anonymous spokespeople at Transport House, although I imagine those same guys are now busy recalibrating their position – it’s stomach-clutching funny how “I’m supporting Andy” has become the universal mantra among the apparatchik-class who, apparently, supported him all along! It’s hard not to be cynical sometimes.

Drakeford’s calculation is that Burnham will be sympathetic to devolution. Starmer never said a single significant thing about Wales, and he employed a do-nothing, know-nothing Secretary of State for Wales. The case for abolishing the post in favour of a revived Constitutional Affairs Department, which briefly existed 20 or so years ago, could not be clearer.

Will Burnham be any better for Wales?

Indie-guitarist charm

For all his everyman appeal, and aging indie-guitarist charm, there remain large holes in Burnham’s world view. While it’s rational to suppose he’ll be more sympathetic to devolution than his predecessor, we have no clue what this might mean in concrete policy terms for Wales.

Will it mean revision of the Barnett Formula – Plaid says not – or devolution of Crown Estate revenues? A re-examination of rail funding and the bizarre England-Wales classification? Devolution of policing and justice, as demanded by Welsh Labour party policy? A redesigned UK constitution to give a meaningful voice to the nations?

I imagine Burnham is thinking about none of these things right now. The guy will be Prime Minister in a heartbeat and is probably sweating. He will arrive in office with practically nothing in place and no serious prior policy planning. He has appointed a plausible Chief of Staff but that’s no more than a starting point. Britain’s constitutional arrangements can sometimes be truly bizarre.

At some point, Burnham will think about Wales or else appoint someone to think for him. The legacy couldn’t be worse. Labour’s brand in Wales is toxic and the party’s casual determination to sweep its catastrophic fall under the carpet is far from encouraging.

Burnham has nothing to lose and should do something big if he wants to demonstrate that UK Labour governments can be the friend of Wales. He can give his decimated party a kick in the right direction and energise those remaining supporters who care about Wales. Right now, Welsh Labour is seen as a submissive UK branch party. As someone once said, things can only get better.

Surrendered

For a quarter century, Welsh Labour were effective stewards of the devolution they created and the centre of political gravity. After Drakeford, Welsh Labour inexplicably surrendered that legacy and handed it over, wrapped with a ribbon, to Plaid Cymru who said “diolch yn fawr iawn – we’ll crack on from here.” And they are.

Things will never return to how they were, and Labour will never be dominant in the old way again. The bigger question now is about the future of devolution. Can Labour rescue devolution as the basis for dynamic government in Wales?

This would require Prime Minister Andy Burnham to talk with the Welsh Government and hand over more powers and more money. If he does this, he may restore faith among some progressive Welsh voters that devolution remains a viable and attractive option for Wales. If he doesn’t, people may lose faith in the UK for good and increasingly independence may seem like a stronger and better option.