What does ‘brand Burnham’ mean for business?

He has won a landslide in Makerfield. Yet while he’s admired by supporters as a talented communicator with strong political instinct, Andy Burnham’s politics are defined more by broad principles than a detailed policy approach.

Today’s by-election victory is an impressive feat. Burnham has managed to swim against the tide of dire local election results, increasing Labour’s vote share by 9 points over 2024.

Without doubt, he will lean on this throughout his leadership bid as evidence he can successfully beat the populist right. However, he did this largely by campaigning on local issues – leaving significant questions about what a national programme for government would look like. ‘Manchesterism’ has been the talk of his leadership campaign, described as ‘business-friendly socialism’ with an appetite to challenge what he sees as the toxic culture of Westminster. But what will it look like in practice?

What does Manchesterism mean for business?

Looking at his tenure as Mayor of Greater Manchester, there will be an expectation that businesses play a broader role in their communities and demonstrate social responsibility alongside delivering commercially. Where this isn’t happening, Burnham sees a role for the state to intervene and set things right.

For organisations seeking to engage a potential Burnham government, this philosophy is key. The emphasis is unlikely to be on rolling back the private sector, but rather redefining the terms of partnership between business and the state. Those able to demonstrate social value, local impact and a meaningful contribution to communities may find a particularly receptive audience.

This is reflected in Burnham’s support for greater public control over areas such as transport and housebuilding. However, control should not be confused with ownership. Rather than widespread nationalisation, a Burnham government would be more likely to pursue partnership models between business and the state, similar to the approach taken with Greater Manchester’s bus network.

Underpinning all of this is a preference for place-based solutions and local empowerment. Devolution may prove one of the earliest and clearest expressions of this approach. Yet, handing greater powers and resources to local leaders where Reform increasingly has control or influence will be unappealing. For those seeking to engage with a potential Burnham government, demonstrating how policy proposals can deliver tangible benefits to communities may prove more persuasive than relying solely on national economic arguments.

It’s also important to consider Burnham as a person, and how this dictates how he will govern. His political strengths have always been rooted in his ability to connect with voters and build broad coalitions of support. However, looking back over his time as Mayor, this could also be his weakness: he has an aversion to unpopular policies. Take Manchester’s proposed clean air charging zone, for example, which has recently been scrapped following opposition. Burnham has sometimes appeared reluctant to pursue policies that attract sustained public opposition, which may prove problematic in a Downing Street where difficult decisions on welfare, public spending and defence will be unavoidable.

The challenges facing Burnham

Should Burnham ultimately become Prime Minister, he would inherit an exceptionally challenging fiscal environment. There remains relatively little detail on how he would address these challenges, leading some critics to question whether his programme is sufficiently developed for government. Throughout the Makerfield campaign, he’s already hemmed himself in by both committing to Rachel Reeves’s fiscal rules, and to tax cuts for small businesses. Timing on these decisions will be key: Burnham will be keen to enter Government in time to take control of the Autumn budget, which is seen as the last opportunity to make difficult fiscal decisions before attention turns to the next general election.

This uncertainty – particularly around borrowing, which his team has been forced to clarify will not be used to fund defence spending – is creating sensitivity in gilt markets and, therefore, a delicate economic landscape for Burnham to enter. In a move designed to reassure markets, Richard Hughes, the former Chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility, has joined Burnham’s team. While supporters argue he will seek to be as radical as possible within the limits he’s inherited, the extent of that room for manoeuvre to deliver meaningful change remains unclear.

A potential Burnham cabinet: the pick for chancellor will be crucial

With all this in mind, his pick for Chancellor will be absolutely pivotal in his programme for Government. Unlike Starmer, Burnham is expected to take a far more active role in economic policymaking – making the relationship between Number 10 and the Treasury particularly significant.

In a possible soft-left double act, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband is viewed as a top contender – not least by himself – who’s been eager to highlight his experience in the Treasury during the New Labour years. However, Burnham’s concern here will be Miliband’s inflexibility on net zero policies – something the new MP for Makerfield may wish to be more lenient on. Issues such as North Sea oil exploration may also expose tensions between Miliband’s net zero priorities and Burnham’s broader electoral coalition-building ambitions, for example among Scottish MPs.

The other name which has made a strong impression on Burnham’s team is Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood. Seen as an effective minister and strong political operator, Mahmood has been willing to take on the tough challenges across justice and immigration. On the right of the party, she will certainly be a stabilising force among bond markets, but her perceived social conservatism has been an area of much contention for some of the party (even if Burnham himself has endorsed them).

Former Health Secretary Wes Streeting is another frequently mentioned name. With a Blair-adjacent political outlook and willingness to challenge party orthodoxy, he could offer a middle ground between Miliband’s ideological rigidity and Mahmood’s perceived social conservatism.

Altogether, Burnham would be likely to face many of the same challenges that have confronted Starmer. He may soon face similarly brutal fiscal trade-offs that have defined Starmer’s premiership, while trying to make voters feel better off in significantly less time than a standard parliamentary term. Simultaneously, he must walk a fine line between appeasing Labour’s soft left while also winning over socially conservative, Reform-leaning voters (including those in Makerfield).

For organisations seeking to understand what a Burnham premiership might mean in practice, the coming months will be revealing. His approach to fiscal policy, his willingness to embrace difficult trade-offs and, perhaps most importantly, his choice of Chancellor will offer the clearest indication yet of whether “Manchesterism” is a governing philosophy or simply an effective campaign message.