Burnham's 'good growth' pitch: How it differs from plans of 'failed' UK PMs

Theresa May promised industrial renewal, Johnson championed levelling up and Starmer pledged national renewal. Andy Burnham argues growth will remain elusive unless power moves beyond Westminster

Andy Burnham’s bid to become Britain’s next prime minister rests on a familiar promise: revive an economy that many voters believe has stagnated for years.

 

Yet while previous leaders largely sought growth through Brexit, fiscal stability, tax cuts or industrial policy from Westminster, Burnham, 56, is presenting a different diagnosis of Britain’s economic malaise: excessive centralisation of power in London.

 

Burnham, speaking at People’s History Museum in Manchester on Monday, pledged to deliver “good growth in every postcode” and promised what he described as the biggest transfer of power away from Westminster in modern British history.

 

His proposal centres on devolving authority to regions, expanding social housing, reindustrialising the economy and giving local communities greater control over services and infrastructure.

 

Burnham’s case for devolution-led growth

Burnham argues that Britain’s economic problems stem not only from weak productivity and low investment but also from a governing model that concentrates too much decision-making in Whitehall.

 

In his speech, he promised to end “politics as usual”, create a “Number 10 North” base in Manchester, empower local authorities, expand council housebuilding and pursue reindustrialisation while remaining within existing fiscal rules.

 

The approach draws heavily on his experience as mayor of Greater Manchester, where he has long advocated devolved control over transport, housing, skills and local economic development. 

According to a report by The Guardian, Burnham’s allies also argue that local leaders are better placed than central government to identify investment priorities and address regional inequalities.

 

Unlike some of his predecessors, Burnham is not proposing a dramatic fiscal reset or a return to Brexit-era promises. Instead, he is betting that structural reform of governance can unlock growth that has eluded successive governments.

Burnham vs Starmer: Devolution over ‘national renewal’

Keir Starmer entered government promising “national renewal”, economic stability and growth driven by investment and green industries.

 

His administration sought to reassure businesses and investors after years of political volatility. However, his government struggled to articulate a distinct economic model capable of materially improving productivity and living standards.

 

The perception that Labour had failed to deliver sufficient change contributed to growing pressure on Starmer’s leadership before his resignation in June.

 

Burnham’s emerging platform is partly an attempt to address that criticism. His argument is that Britain needs not just policy adjustments but a fundamental redesign of how the state operates, with more power transferred to regions and local communities.

Burnham and Sunak: Fiscal discipline, different growth models

Rishi Sunak took office in the aftermath of the Truss market turmoil with a narrower objective of restoring credibility and stability.

 

His government’s priorities included halving inflation, reducing debt and returning the economy to sustainable growth. Inflation did decline substantially during his tenure, but economic expansion remained subdued and public dissatisfaction over living standards persisted.

 

Sunak’s approach was defined by caution and fiscal restraint. Burnham, while also committing to fiscal discipline, is proposing a more activist programme centred on housing, industrial strategy and decentralised governance.

Burnham vs Truss: Growth without the tax-cut gamble

Liz Truss entered office promising “growth, growth and growth” through a programme of tax reductions, deregulation and investment incentives.

 

Her government announced large unfunded tax cuts, reversed planned tax increases and sought to accelerate development through regulatory changes.

 

The strategy fell rapidly after financial markets reacted negatively to the package. Sterling fell sharply, government borrowing costs surged and the Bank of England was forced to intervene.

 

Truss resigned after just 49 days, making hers the shortest premiership in British history.

 

Burnham’s programme stands in sharp contrast. Rather than proposing a market-shifting fiscal gamble, he, in his speech, emphasised adherence to existing fiscal rules while focusing on institutional reform and regional empowerment.

Burnham and Johnson: Shared goal, different route to growth

Boris Johnson’s 2019 election victory was built around the twin promises of “Get Brexit Done” and “levelling up” economically weaker regions.

 

His government pledged major infrastructure spending, new trade opportunities after Brexit and a transition towards a higher-wage, higher-skill economy. Johnson repeatedly argued that neglected parts of the country would benefit from renewed investment and economic opportunity.

 

Yet the programme failed to deliver the scale of transformation initially promised. Brexit-related trade frictions, labour shortages and subsequent economic shocks complicated implementation. While “levelling up” aimed to reduce regional inequalities, many decisions remained controlled from Westminster.

 

Burnham’s proposal shares Johnson’s objective of reducing regional disparities but differs in its mechanism. Rather than directing investment from the centre, Burnham wants local leaders to exercise greater authority over economic planning, housing and infrastructure.

Burnham vs May: Governance reform, not Brexit

When Theresa May entered Downing Street in 2016, she sought to reposition the Conservative Party around a more interventionist economic model. She pledged to address regional disparities, curb irresponsible corporate behaviour and develop an industrial strategy aimed at raising productivity.

 

Her government also promised to support communities that felt left behind by globalisation and the financial crisis.

 

However, May’s economic agenda became inseparable from Brexit. The prolonged political deadlock over the UK’s departure from the European Union created uncertainty for businesses and investors. As companies delayed investment decisions, productivity growth remained weak and wages struggled to accelerate, undermining many of the economic objectives she had outlined.

 

Burnham’s diagnosis differs significantly. Rather than focusing on Britain’s relationship with Europe, he argues that the country’s governance structure itself requires reform, with decision-making dispersed beyond London.

A familiar promise, a different route

The common thread linking Britain’s recent prime ministers has been a pledge to revive economic growth and raise living standards. May promised an industrial revival, Johnson championed levelling up, Truss pursued supply-side reforms, Sunak prioritised stability and Starmer focused on national renewal.

 

Burnham is making a similar promise of economic revival. The distinction lies in his contention that Britain’s economic underperformance is inseparable from its highly centralised political system.