Can Burnham’s Manchesterism become a viable governing platform?

MANCHESTERISM is “the end of neoliberalism,” Andy Burnham claimed in his campaign launch video this week, a film that made an audacious offer not only to his byelection constituents in Makerfield but also outlined how he intends to change national politics and the economy.

But the 2026 doctrine of Manchesterism differs sharply from its 19th-century namesake, which was synonymous with free trade.

Now, in the hands of the Greater Manchester mayor, it means a national rollout of what he has achieved locally: essential assets brought under greater public control, such as the bus network; a closer state-business partnership to spread wealth; and a major expansion of devolution.

However, turning Manchesterism into a practical offer for government — potentially within weeks — is an immense challenge. The operation is running on a shoestring, with numerous players competing for influence.

Those backing Burnham are determined to be bold and authentic, but that runs alongside a deep fear of alarming an already jittery bond market, causing borrowing costs to spike, or risking handing the seat to Reform UK.

Those constraints were evident in Burnham’s weekend statement that he will adhere to Rachel Reeves’s fiscal rules, meaning any further expansion of public spending must be funded by tax increases.

Investors had been fretting about an unfunded spending splurge under a Burnham leadership after he called for Labour to be less “in hock” to bond markets. Shadow chancellor Mel Stride has begun claiming the government already pays a “Burnham penalty” in higher borrowing costs.

Burnham, according to close adviser Neal Lawson, founder of the thinktank Compass, developed his prognosis entirely through his work in Manchester, though its roots lie in the praised civic leadership of Howard Bernstein, chief executive of Manchester City Council during the New Labour years.

“What is interesting about Andy is that he does not get his theory of change from books,” Lawson said. “He’s what Gramsci would call an organic intellectual, because it’s literally the practice of running Manchester.”

The intellectual work of Manchesterism, which Burnham intends as his framework for government, has been unfolding over many months with different influences.

From the left come Common Wealth’s Mathew Lawrence and economist Alex Williams, whose ideas will be fleshed out in an essay titled “The Productive State,” though in practice these ideas are significantly more radical than what Burnham believes he can achieve in the short term without his own electoral mandate.

Their argument holds that privatisation is at the root of Britain’s problems, essential services are run entirely for profit, and the welfare state has ballooned because ordinary people need state help just to afford essentials.

Lawrence’s work argues that the state should not just regulate but directly own and operate in essential sectors, providing services where profit is not the main incentive — as seen in practice with Manchester’s Bee Network buses, where the city controls routes and pricing.

But Burnham himself has never directly said he intends to nationalise essential services such as energy and water; rather, he advocates bringing them into “public control” with more government involvement in their operation and funding.

Those close to the mayor say the pragmatic version of Manchesterism shows a framework for a more productive state-business relationship — Burnham is widely known as a business-friendly mayor. “You can be pro-business but want more of the proceeds of growth recycled back into our communities,” he has said.

The small team behind Burnham faces an extraordinary challenge: winning a tight byelection and potentially preparing for power, while likely facing tough questions about how the framework can be applied in government via specific policy levers, especially under severe fiscal constraints.

Allies of Burnham say the first test of their theories on public ownership will be Thames Water, the stricken utility for which the government is currently seeking a new buyer.

Many on the Labour left want ministers to abandon sale negotiations and allow Thames to collapse into special administration, effectively putting the government in the driver’s seat.

Some advocate for public control of water companies rather than full nationalisation, which could involve setting up an independent company with, for example, worker representation on the board and some accountability to government.

They cite Berlin as an example, where the local water company was brought back under municipal control in 2012; its board is half elected by workers and half appointed by the city council.

Some on the Labour right fear Lawrence’s approach, set out in a long New Statesman article last week, is too theoretical and lacks a retail offer. The Labour Growth Group, which has discussed its recent publication “An Honest Day” with Burnham’s team, has called for more tangible, immediate action on the cost of living and harder messaging on extractive capitalism that rewards grifting.

The other key influence — though less likely to play a major part in the byelection — has been Lawson’s thinktank Compass, primarily their work on constitutional reform, especially the electoral system. However, Burnham has indicated he does not expect this to be possible before the next election.

Besides Lawrence and Lawson, Makerfield’s outgoing MP, Josh Simons, is likely to be influential in developing Burnham’s agenda — although his past at the Starmerite operation Labour Together and the fallout from the scandal over the investigation of journalists that led to his resignation from the government in February will create an uneasy alliance with some on the left who have long backed Burnham.

Simons and his wife Leah, a Harvard-trained economist, grilled Burnham for two hours at their Makerfield home on his economic agenda before Simons decided to give up his seat to allow the mayor to run again for parliament.

But Simons said Sunday he too believes in Burnham’s diagnosis about the selling off of national assets. “One of the things he’s really, really committed to is that the energy, water, social housing, those things that are the basics of our lives that we all depend on have gotten so expensive … we’ve privatised a lot of them and often the bills that we pay go to the shareholders of some private equity fund,” he said.

“It is for Andy to say whether he’s going to disaggregate neoliberalism but, you know, I don’t think he would entirely reject that … I basically agree that over the last 40 years the basic way that we’ve run our economy is shafting my constituents.”