"True to the motto of this city, I am going to do things differently," Andy Burnham declared, referencing the film 24 Hour Party People. The departing Greater Manchester mayor’s speech in Manchester did indeed depict a rather different way of seeing and running the UK, but left many questions about the detail unanswered.
Burnham presented a diagnosis of what has caused economic malaise, rooted in his own experiences running the city and when he was previously in cabinet. At its heart is a critique of an unresponsive British state, adept at arguing with itself rather than achieving real change and rebuilding the country. His solutions were ambitious but mostly general: taking power from the centre and giving it to regions and cities, as occurs routinely in other advanced countries.
“Andy Burnham's speech offered a different vision for the UK, but lacked detail on economic trade-offs.”
He told a story of his time as chief secretary to the Treasury two decades ago, wishing to build a northern equivalent to London's Crossrail, but being told it would not pass the Treasury cost benefit equation. The speech was not a detailed plan for the economy, with assessments of tax, spend, investment and infrastructure or strategies for trade, AI and Europe. Partly that is because this is still officially a Labour leadership campaign; Burnham appeared to be trying to keep as much powder dry as possible on precise trade-offs.
There was general policy direction on changes to business rates, housebuilding, technical education and infrastructure. The upbeat and optimistic tone was notable. In two specific areas Burnham appeared to communicate a capacity for being prudent on spending and borrowing: he confirmed he will stick to existing borrowing rules, and backed the Milburn Review into young people's employment outcomes, which could lead to welfare savings.
These are two parts of what has been described as a broad five-part plan. Devolution and industrial policy are two other legs. The remaining part he referred to as quicker help on the cost of living. But how does this square with sticking to the 2024 manifesto not to raise major taxes and the fiscal rules? Some changes will surely require extra spending. Devolution of decision-making may also require diverting actual capital spending from the south east to northern powerhouse rail.
In Europe this agenda normally means extra borrowing powers for regions to invest in their infrastructure. Can that be squared with keeping to existing borrowing rules? There are many other questions about the detail, which may or may not get answered in the next three weeks.