ANDREW NEIL: Why I already fear Andy Burnham's as ignorant as Keir Starmer on economics - especially when it comes to generating growth

By ANDREW NEIL, DAILY MAIL COLUMNIST Published: 01:00, 30 June 2026 | Updated: 01:00, 30 June 2026 There was something quite surreal about Andy Burnham’s speech in Manchester yesterday, in which he outlined his economic policies for the first time since he became our prime minister-in-waiting. For a start, rather like the SNP politician who sported a posh English accent when in London but campaigned in broad Scottish tones to become MP for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry, so Burnham has two wardrobes: dark T-shirt and casual jacket for the North (which he wore yesterday), proper suit, shirt and tie for Westminster. Proud northerners should feel insulted. More important, it seemed unreal to be listening intently to every word this Cambridge English Literature graduate had to say about the economy – an area in which he has next-to-no track record or expertise, proposing policies which he has no democratic mandate to implement. They have not been scrutinised in robust debate even by his own Labour Party but that won’t stop them being Government policy in about three weeks, despite the fact some will inevitably crash on take-off. It was more the naive speech of the political novice starting out on the long road to power, whose journey would knock some reality and common sense into him, than the man who will shortly take up residence in 10 Downing Street, without any proper training and clearly unprepared for what’s about to hit him. He promised to promote a ‘more collaborative politics’ (good luck with that), pitched himself as the ‘circuit-breaker’ (nope, I have no idea either), promised not to use the party whipping system to close down debate (delusional, to be ditched, pronto) and vowed to deliver ‘good growth in every postcode and hope in every heart’ (for some reason he omitted motherhood and apple pie). Of course, no politician can lift up every postcode or dabble in people’s hearts. But it’s a sign of Burnham’s absolute faith in the efficacy of government that he thinks he can. That government, not business, is the key to economic growth for him. There was something quite surreal about Andy Burnham’s speech in Manchester yesterday, in which he outlined his economic policies for the first time since he became our prime minister-in-waiting, writes Andrew Neil He promised to promote a ‘more collaborative politics’ (good luck with that), promised not to use the party whipping system to close down debate (delusional, to be ditched, pronto) and vowed to deliver ‘good growth in every postcode and hope in every heart’ That the problem is not a stifling state that’s too big, but a state that is too centralised. That if only the beneficence of active government could be devolved away from Whitehall to cities and regions – in the ‘biggest rebalancing of power’ ever – then the economy would boom. There is, of course, no correlation or causation between devolution and growth. If there was, Wales and Scotland would be economic miracles. In fact, devolution has condemned Wales to remain one of the poorest parts of Europe, while Scotland increasingly languishes as a backwater in all the endeavours – finance, energy, technology, education – that used to give it such hope for the future. The mere devolution of power does not guarantee it will be any better wielded for the public good. Indeed, the evidence from Scotland and Wales suggests the opposite. Wales has the worst-performing schools in the UK. Scottish schools, once the envy of the world, have plummeted down the international league tables since they fell under the tender care of the Scottish parliament. Welsh and Scottish NHS waiting times are worse, despite far higher health funding per head. What devolution does guarantee is a large, new political elite enjoying all the perquisites of office and power. Edinburgh and Cardiff are awash in what the old Soviet Union called the nomenklatura – party politicians, their countless advisers and aides, the bureaucrats of a bloated public sector, state-financed quango operatives, and media hangers-on. All enjoying salaries and status they could never earn in the private sector, of course. Burnham thinks that if only the beneficence of active government could be devolved away from Whitehall to cities and regions – in the ‘biggest rebalancing of power’ ever – then the economy would boom Jobs for the boys and girls of the lanyard classes, in other words, if not for the rest. Scotland and Wales can lay claim to being the most over-governed parts of Europe, which explains their sclerotic economies. Yet Burnham thinks devolution will regenerate and reindustrialise our economy. It is fantasy economics – built on a wing and a prayer, unhinged from reality. He promised the ‘biggest council house building programme since the post-war years’ with nary a word on how he’d foot the bill. It’s an ambition that will go the way of the 2024 Labour election manifesto housing promise, which pledged 1.5 million new homes by 2029, a target which is already mission impossible. He endorsed ‘greater public control’ of utilities, by which he meant water, energy, transport and housing, without giving the slightest indication what this would mean in practice – except to say that, in keeping with his devolution imperative, it was local and city government that would do the controlling. Sounds like a return to municipal socialism to me. For those alarmed by all this I would suggest there is no need to panic – at least not yet. Burnham has decided to reform our utilities, regenerate our urban centres and reindustrialise our regions by creating what he called a ‘Number 10 North’ – a branch office of 10 Downing Street in Manchester (of course) to spearhead the Burnham revolution. It would be the ‘nerve centre of a rewired Britain’ from which ‘power [would] flow’ to the regions, in Burnham over-the-top speak. This makes it even less likely any of this will happen. To make the scale of changes Burnham contemplates would be hard enough using existing government machinery. To attempt it by creating a new arm of government in Manchester, far from all the departmental power centres in Whitehall, is a recipe for failure. How can it mastermind a massive council house programme when the housing department is over 200 miles south? How can it regenerate our towns and cities when the local government and other relevant departments remain in London? How can it reindustrialise the provinces when the business and energy departments remain so far away? Unless Burnham is planning to move half the government to Manchester – a process which would take years and cost billions – it is no more than symbolic, performative nonsense – a PR stunt. The Civil Service, of course, will quickly have it for breakfast, populating it with the second rate, ignoring it until it withers on the vine. I suspect it will be already covered in cobwebs by this time next year. Burnham’s speech wasn’t just fantastical, it was peppered with contradictions. He touted the virtues of devolution while calling for ‘equivalent living conditions everywhere’. But real devolution is incompatible with uniformity. It is in the very nature of devolution that some parts of the country will do better than others, because some local rulers will be better than others. Call it a postcode lottery. Burnham also averred that housing would be his top priority, implying that he will more willingly find money for his crash course in council house building than he will for defence. It suggests that rearming Britain will be no easier a task under him than it was under Keir Starmer. The speech was billed as Burnham’s economic manifesto. It was no such thing. It was bereft of substance on inflation, growth, cost of living, taxes, borrowing, enterprise. The fear grows that Burnham is as ignorant as Starmer when it comes to understanding economics – especially what makes economies grow and what generates wealth. Having complained about too much government in Whitehall being unaccountable, Burnham departed the stage without taking questions from the media. There was no time, his spinners explained, our presumptive prime minister had to dash back to London. These are words that those who end up populating the ‘No 10 North’ should get used to hearing on a regular basis. The comments below have not been moderated. The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline. By posting your comment you agree to our house rules. Do you want to automatically post your MailOnline comments to your Facebook Timeline? Your comment will be posted to MailOnline as usual. Do you want to automatically post your MailOnline comments to your Facebook Timeline? Your comment will be posted to MailOnline as usual We will automatically post your comment and a link to the news story to your Facebook timeline at the same time it is posted on MailOnline. To do this we will link your MailOnline account with your Facebook account. We’ll ask you to confirm this for your first post to Facebook. You can choose on each post whether you would like it to be posted to Facebook. Your details from Facebook will be used to provide you with tailored content, marketing and ads in line with our Privacy Policy. What your vitamins and supplements are really doing to you: So many swear by them, but now DR NICK TILLER reveals what impact they actually have on your health, what goes into them... and the ones that are dangerous