The contradiction at the heart of Andy Burnham’s attitude to devolution
Richard Wyn Jones
There is a contradiction at the heart of Andy Burnham’s attitude to devolution. On the face of it, the new UK Prime Minister’s commitment could hardly be clearer. Last week he told readers of The Guardian (23.7.2026) that when ‘When I entered Downing Street, I told staff that the era of fighting devolution is over. No one in government loses when power is shared. When you lift up a place, you lift up Britain .’
Yet his appointments to the territorial ministries – the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales – tell a very different story. These are the cabinet posts involving most day-to-day interaction with actually-existing devolution.
All three are now occupied by politicians who hold distinctly sceptical views about devolution as it has developed around the periphery of the state and whose first instinct is precisely to fight and obstruct.
There is now a tradition of Secretaries of State for Scotland who regard their role as leading the fight against successive SNP governments in Edinburgh.
Scottish voters must be shown the error or their democratic ways! Reappointed to the role by Burnham, Douglas Alexander is merely the latest in this now long line.
Rhondda MP’s (Sir) Chris Bryant surprise appointment as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has been the source of some bemusement among those journalists who follow the Labour party’s internal politics most .
There is, however, no doubt that Bryant is on the devo-sceptic wing of his party. In a post on Elon Musk’s X in February, he condemned the idea of ‘standing up for Wales’ as ‘separatism’.
Readers of Nation will need no reminding that this was the slogan of the pro-devolution ‘Welsh Labour’ faction of the party that had subsequently been appropriated by Plaid Cymru .
Given that Northern Ireland’s devolution arrangements are, in effect, guaranteed by the UK’s international treaty obligations, and that Bryant new role is to try to make them work more effectively, it remains to be seen how he approaches that task. But an instinctive devolutionist he is not!
The new Welsh Secretary, Stephen Kinnock, may well be the scion of one of our most prominent anti-devolution families, but with his profile at least as high in Denmark as it is in Wales, his views on Welsh devolution had been something of a mystery.
Following his appointment, however, he wasted little time in making clear that he would ‘need to be convinced’ of the case for more powers even in areas such a justice where Labour’s own Welsh conference has overwhelmingly supported the case for devolution.
How do we explain the contradiction between Burnham’s enthusiastic championing of devolution and the deep devo-scepticism of his territorial Secretaries?
It’s worth noting, first, that Burnham’s choices for Scotland and Wales are very much reflect the thinking of this own party’s Scottish and Welsh MPs who are, with remarkably few exceptions, deeply suspicious of and even hostile towards the devolved governments of their respective countries.
Political capital
In Wales, this was even the case when Labour was in power in Cardiff! For the new Prime Minister to challenge such views would involve expending political capital taking on entrenched party bureaucracies.
He may well have decided that it is simply not a battle worth fighting when the next general election will be won or lost in England.
Second and relatedly, the Scottish Parliamentary Labour Party, in particular, has become adept at using pro-devolution rhetoric as a veil for its hostility towards actually-existing devolution.
Their argument is that power should be devolved from Holyrood to more local levels. But whatever the rhetoric, in reality, they have become champions of bypassing Edinburgh.
This means, continuing with the approach of previous Conservative governments who sought to cut-out devolved government by working directly with local government.
In Scotland, this is a level of government where Labour councillors regularly cooperate with their Conservative and even Reform counterparts in order to ‘dish the nats’.
There are clear signs that this is the approach now favoured by influential figures in the Welsh party. But there remain countervailing forces that may well make aping the Scottish approach difficult.
There are, for example, obvious anomalies in the current devolution arrangements that Labour will find it hard to defend. One looks forwards to hearing Kinnock try to explain why Andy Burnham in his previous role of Mayor of Manchester should have enjoyed more power in relation to policing than the Welsh Government.
There are, in addition, prominent figures in the Welsh party who will oppose attempts to undermine devolved government in the name of some abstract and frankly disingenuous commitment to ‘deeper devolution’.
On last week’s edition of the BBC’s ‘Gwleidydda’ podcast, former First Minister (Lord) Carwyn Jones, made it clear that he was ‘totally opposed’ to any attempt to bypass the government in Cardiff in this .
Support
Finally, at some point before the next UK election, surely even Welsh Labour MPs will recognise the need to win back the support of those voters who switched from Labour to Plaid Cymru in May’s Senedd election.
As Jones also pointed out, this simply isn’t going to happen if the party is regarded as being hostile to devolution.
Whether it be deliberately or not, the UK’s new, ostensibly devolutionist Prime Minister has given succour to some of the most devo-sceptic elements within his own party in Scotland and in Wales. It remains to be seen for how long this can be sustained as a direction of travel.
Support our Nation today
For the price of a cup of coffee a month you can help us create an independent, not-for-profit, national news service for the people of Wales, by the people of Wales.
Get more trusted Welsh news
Choose Nation.Cymru as a preferred source in Google News to see more of our journalism.
What the author doesn’t appear to have grasped is that these are Labour politicians. Labour is a Unionist party, who espouse their own ‘workers’ vision of British Nationalism. Why would Bryant, Kinnock et al be enthusiastic about devolution that empowers Cymru, Scotland and Northern Ireland. They instinctively, and historically, favour diktats from London rather than the democratic processes and structures within their own nations. Strange but true!
The views of Welsh labour and uk labour have traditionally been very different, and while uk labour has long been British nationalist, Welsh labour (as in the senedd group) has long been Welsh nationalist by most definitions (that’s not the same as wanting an independent wales).
The risk now is that the shrinking of the senedd group means that voice is drowned out by the uk labour MPs in Wales.
There’s nothing in the word “unionist” that implies a “centralist”. After all, the most successful union in human history is a federation. And that’s not a coincidence either.
In my view the author is somewhat obsessed about the need for a Secretary of State to be only focused upon securing more developed powers. In reality I’m not sure this is even one of the roles. The main purpose is to represent the nation at cabinet and Westminster level I.e prevent wales being forgotten in non-devolved matters, and challenge policies that have unintended consequences to wales in devolved areas. They should also help with coordinating UK wide policies such as industrial strategies and fight UK wide funding such as defence. in that sense you want somebody who is experienced… Read more »
I read him the article as being about an SoS that is actively anti- devolution (and supportive of its undermining, as through UKIMA etc), rather than wanting them to seek expansion – through given expanded devolution is the policy of at least the last five democratically elected Welsh Governments, maybe it should be if they’re reflecting Wales in uk cabinet?
If you were to list the major concerns of Welsh people over the past 5 years, cost of living, Brexit, NHS waiting lists, job opportunities and probably immigration would come up. Outside of online nationalist circles, I doubt devolution even comes up in the real world. I’ve never had it mentioned to me in person. It’s not the big issue people make out on social media
It depends how you phrase the question. Try asking them if they want things to be better. Then ask them if (because the UK is currently structured to enrich London at the expense of everyone else) they would support devomax to make things better. Let us know how you get on.
Ha! ‘if we devolve policing (with no aim of what we’ll do with it!), then cost of living, immigration problems will be solved and NHS waiting lists will drop instantly ‘ seems a little far fetched!
This thread didn’t mention policing, only decentralising in broad terms that doesn’t exclude fiscal devolution which is what’s needed to move the UK away from one rich centre and a bunch of underperforming economic regions dependent on handouts.
It’s not really a contradiction though is it. Despite sharing a term, the powers and historical rationale for devolution to the Nations and devolution to the English cities is very different. In the English case Mayoral devolution is largely about creating a more strategic layer of decision making in the regulatory and economic development sphere, much of which the devolved governments in the nations could extent into their own local authorities already if they wished to. There’s no talk of extending any sort of legislative competence to these English authorities or giving them executive control of the broad framework of… Read more »
This is all about fiscal devolution. If he’s just planning a watered down version of Welsh and Scottish devolution for the English regions he won’t see much objection from the other nations but he also won’t deliver the economic revolution in the north that he needs. Without a big boost in GDP whatever he does will be labelled as an expensive vanity project and reversed by the next blue government of either shade. So the “nothing new for you” noises we’re hearing so far suggests he’s either setting himself up for failure or he’s planning to dish out real fiscal… Read more »
Not one but three Secretaries of State for Intransigence
Policing will be devolved to Wales.
The fight for more powers for Wales is hard, but when has it ever not been? Every Westminster government in history has been reluctant to devolve power. And yet we have a Senedd.
We’ve won more powers for Wales before, and we can win again. Yma o hyd.
It’s not about personalities or political parties, nor is devolution a universal model. Holyrood is not the Senedd, neither are the same as Stormont and none are the same as English mayoralties. Time to move beyond the current high level claims and articulate exactly what we want and, crucially, the financial terms involved. That responsibility/opportunity falls to the devolved governments in my view (as does the need to decentralise beyond Cardiff Bay).