Andy Burnham emerges as frontrunner for UK leadership after Keir Starmer resigns

Following the resignation of Prime Minister Keir Starmer from both his government post and the leadership of the Labour Party, Andy Burnham has emerged as the most likely figure to assume the UK’s leadership.

Burnham, the former Mayor of Greater Manchester, was elected to the House of Commons two weeks ago after winning a by-election in Makerfield by a wide margin.

Long prominent within the Labour Party as a leading rival to Starmer, Burnham has so far faced no declared challengers in the race for the party leadership.

Having expressed regret 20 years later for voting “yes” in the 2003 parliamentary division on the invasion of Iraq, Burnham built his early political career as a mid-ranking government official under Tony Blair’s Labour administration.

Burnham points to a pivotal moment in his political life when he was booed at a match at Liverpool’s famous Anfield stadium while serving as Culture and Sport Secretary in the government of Blair’s successor, Gordon Brown.

Representing the Brown administration at Anfield on the 20th anniversary of the 1989 Hillsborough disaster, in which 97 Liverpool fans lost their lives, the then 39-year-old minister’s attempt to deliver condolences was interrupted by loud, angry shouts from the stands demanding justice for the victims.

Up to that point, successive British governments had rejected demands for a public inquiry into the disaster. Burnham says that from that moment on, he decided to pursue politics “outside of London” and to become “a voice for the voiceless.”

According to a profile in The Guardian, critics have dubbed Burnham “Captain U-turn” for giving the impression of shifting his political views over the decades, while others view him as “a man who listens.”

After graduating from university, Burnham moved to London, where he briefly worked for trade publications such as Tank World and Passenger World Management before securing a role as a researcher in the parliamentary office of Labour MP Tessa Jowell.

Having also advised the Culture Secretary of the time, Chris Smith, Burnham was elected as an MP for his hometown constituency of Leigh in Greater Manchester in 2001.

He initially served as a junior minister in the Blair administration before joining the cabinet under Brown as Chief Secretary to the Treasury. He later served as Culture Secretary and subsequently Health Secretary.

In 2010, Burnham ran for the Labour leadership on a platform of “passionate socialism” but finished fourth out of five candidates, losing to Ed Miliband, who campaigned on moving the party further to the left.

Following Miliband’s defeat in the 2015 general election, Burnham ran for the leadership again, adopting a more moderate, “centrist” rhetoric aimed at highlighting a business-friendly stance.

Launching his campaign at the headquarters of professional services firm Ernst & Young, Burnham argued that entrepreneurs should be seen as “every bit as much our heroes as nurses.” He ultimately lost that contest to Jeremy Corbyn.

Burnham accepted a shadow cabinet role under Corbyn, taking on the position of Shadow Home Secretary. He was also one of the few frontbenchers who did not resign from Corbyn’s team in 2016 when the Labour leader was accused by some of failing to campaign actively enough to remain in the EU, a factor critics argued contributed to the Brexit victory.

In 2017, Burnham left Corbyn’s shadow cabinet to run for the newly created position of Mayor of Greater Manchester.

He won the election with more than 60% of the vote and was re-elected by an even larger margin in 2021.

During his tenure in Manchester, he won praise for reforming the region’s transport network by bringing bus services back under public control.

His fierce advocacy for a region that lagged economically behind much of the rest of the country earned him the moniker “King of the North.”

Upon becoming Mayor of Manchester, he pledged to eradicate rough sleeping. In the initial years, progress was made, with the number of rough sleepers nearly halved by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic compared to 2016 levels. However, Burnham was unable to sustain this progress; by November 2025, the number of rough sleepers had returned to 2016 levels.

Should he become Prime Minister, Burnham’s primary challenge will be addressing the UK’s economic decline. According to some assertions, the prospective leader could move to reverse the privatizations that have defined the country for the past 40 years, turning instead to renationalization.

Under a new blueprint dubbed “Manchesterism,” an Andy Burnham administration could seek to reverse 40 years of privatization through a long-term plan to take over failing public utilities, issue debt-for-equity swaps, and establish competitive state-owned enterprises.

This policy paper, titled “The Productive State,” was published just as Burnham arrived in London to take his oath as MP for Makerfield.

The paper’s author, Mathew Lawrence—who is close to Burnham and worked alongside him on plans to bring public services under state control—released the document in coordination with Mainstream, a Labour group acting as a vehicle for Burnham’s leadership ambitions.

Former minister Miatta Fahnbulleh, a policy adviser to Burnham who is widely identified as the architect of his economic policies, described the paper as “an important contribution to the debate on how we solve this problem, deliver the change the public is crying out for, and begin rebuilding our broken economy.”

Lawrence stated that the paper envisions “a state that owns, invests, and provides to make life affordable; a politics that reclaims control over the essentials of a civilized life—clean water, cheap energy, warm homes, reliable transport—built and run by publicly accountable institutions.”

Subtitled “A Framework for Manchesterism,” the paper criticizes the long-standing trend toward the privatization of public services, arguing it lies at the heart of the UK’s growth and productivity crises by stripping away control over essential services and driving up the cost of living.

While neither the paper nor Burnham himself advocates for a wholesale renationalization program, they call for a framework of greater state intervention to protect the public from skyrocketing costs and the burden of bailing out failing private firms.

The Guardian previously reported that Burnham’s allies have discussed managing a 10-year project to bring large portions of England’s water and energy sectors under state control.

This process would likely begin with the struggling utility provider Thames Water.

Ultimately, Burnham’s allies want to bring energy transmission and supply companies, potentially including the electricity grid operator National Grid, under public control.

The paper outlines several pathways to achieving public control over the long term. For instance, if a company like Thames Water falls into financial distress, the government could intervene by implementing a “special administration regime.”

Burnham points to the Greater Manchester bus network as an example, where private operators bid for franchises to deliver services, but fares, timetables, and routes are controlled by local government.

For financially stable utility companies, the paper notes that the law typically requires the government to pay fair market value to acquire them.

To achieve this without a massive upfront cash expenditure, the paper suggests the state could use a “debt-for-equity swap” method, though it notes this would require primary legislation and likely face significant legal challenges.

Alternatively, the state could gradually assume control by establishing its own commercial public enterprises, though this path would potentially require large-scale borrowing.

While Burnham has stated a desire to prevent “excessive profiteering” in the sector, he has yet to detail exactly what a similar model would look like in practice for water and energy companies.

The Starmer government had already planned tighter regulation of the water sector through new legislation this autumn.

The paper has won praise from several prominent Labour figures, including Fahnbulleh and Stewart Wood, a Labour peer and former economic adviser to Ed Miliband.

Wood described the paper as “a valuable contribution to rethinking the social democratic case for a more active state that helps generate wealth and improve the quality of life across the country.”

Among the key commitments Burnham made during his Makerfield campaign was to stick to Labour’s pledge from the last election not to raise the main rates of income tax, VAT, and National Insurance.

During his campaign, he also indicated a desire to “look closely” at the possibility of raising the starting threshold for income tax, which is currently £12,570.

Burnham argues that housing policy has slipped too far down the priority list of successive governments. However, several of his signature policies—such as prioritizing development on brownfield land and restricting Right to Buy—have already been implemented by the current government.

According to the BBC, one of the biggest departures in Burnham’s advocated approach is to allocate the entirety of the 10-year, £39 billion affordable housing budget to social rent homes—the cheapest and most heavily subsidized form of publicly funded housing.

Like the Conservative administration under Rishi Sunak, Labour has reduced immigration levels by tightening visa requirements.

During his campaign in Makerfield, Burnham said that net migration “needs to come down further,” though he did not set a specific target.

On foreign policy, Burnham has expressed a desire to see the UK rejoin the EU within his lifetime, though he added that he has no wish to “re-run the 2016 referendum right now.”

His stance on relations with the EU will soon be tested. Among the legacies he would inherit from Starmer are a series of ongoing negotiations, particularly regarding youth visas, food regulations, and plans to link the UK back to the EU’s carbon pricing system.

Defence spending, which led to the resignation of Starmer’s Defence Secretary John Healey in early June, will be another key issue. While Burnham has stated he would “find more cash” than Starmer for defence spending, it remains unclear how he would achieve this.

Another significant challenge will be how Burnham manages relations with US President Donald Trump.

While Burnham has noted that the UK must seek “a good relationship” with the US, he has also stated that he would not shy away from saying “we don’t agree with them.”

At present, the selection of the new Chancellor of the Exchequer appears to be taking on particular importance. Two prominent names in contention are Wes Streeting and Ed Miliband.

Both Streeting and Burnham favor raising taxes on wealth rather than income. However, senior allies of Burnham expect Streeting—who has abandoned his own leadership ambitions—to be appointed to another senior cabinet post, amid rumors that he could become Foreign Secretary.

The Economist, emphasizing the need to tackle rising health and social care costs, adopt a pragmatic approach to the net-zero target, and cut red tape, has declared its preference: Wes Streeting.

Arguing that appointing Streeting would be “a sign of willingness to embrace growth,” the magazine is nevertheless not optimistic:

“The problem is that these policies run counter to Mr Burnham’s instincts, which are more aligned with those of Ed Miliband, another candidate for chancellor, who holds more statist views. Harnessing AI will require creative destruction; inefficient firms must be allowed to go bust, and workers must be able to move to jobs better suited to AI. Burnham seems instinctively opposed to the deregulation needed to achieve this. His allies, meanwhile, are demanding worker protections that are stronger even than those introduced by Sir Keir.”

Arguing that “such misconceptions” are visible elsewhere, The Economist contends that Burnham favors an “expensive state house-building programme” and wishes to reindustrialize the economy, which it describes as “a romantic notion that ignores the fact that Britain’s comparative advantage lies in services.”

Burnham, on the other hand, has not yet made a decision regarding the Treasury. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood also remains in contention.

Senior members of Burnham’s team remain divided over whether to appoint Miliband to the post.

According to The Times, allies of Miliband, the Energy Secretary, argue that he is the only candidate with both the experience and the radical approach needed to transform Britain’s stagnant economy.

However, his critics, including some ministers, argue that he does not offer sufficient support to business and risks damaging market confidence.

They also point to his opposition to new oil and gas drilling licenses in the North Sea, an option Burnham has indicated he remains open to.

On the other hand, his appointment of James Purnell, a veteran of the former Tony Blair government, as his chief adviser is seen as a promising sign by The Economist and the Financial Times.

Flint Global, the advisory firm headed by Purnell, counts BP, Amazon, Jaguar Land Rover, and Uber among its clients.

Burnham is also expected to appoint Lord O’Neill, a former Goldman Sachs banker and Treasury minister, and Andy Haldane, the former chief economist of the Bank of England, to senior economic roles in his administration.

The most concise assessment of “Burnhamomics” comes from Jennifer Williams, who has closely followed Burnham for many years as the Financial Times Northern England correspondent:

“It is hard to escape the fact that when Burnham arrived in Greater Manchester, he took over a project that was already underway; he successfully sold this to loyal Labour supporters as a rejection of neoliberalism and trickle-down economics. Yet, it was never that.”