Prime-Minister-in-Waiting Andy Burnham’s first major intervention since his path to Downing Street opened was heavy on long-term vision, but light on short-term policy.
In a speech in Manchester, he put local devolution and reindustrialisation at the heart of a ten-year mission to deliver “good growth in every postcode”, anchored by a new “Number 10 North” intended to push power and resources out of Whitehall.
In a Scotsman op-ed that immediately followed, he made the same pitch: growth can only be delivered locally, and Scotland’s future lies in backing energy, shipbuilding and manufacturing. The fact that Aberdeen was specifically referenced in both interventions is politically significant for a region in the midst of navigating the energy transition.
On paper, this should be a boon for the Scotland’s high-value energy sector and supply chain, concentrated mainly in the North East. Burnham’s emphasis on regional industrial strategy, local leadership and technical skills speaks directly to the challenge of ensuring that the jobs, supply chains and wealth generated by the energy transition are rooted in the communities that helped build the UK’s existing energy strength. His language on procurement, sovereign capability and apprenticeships also suggests a more interventionist approach to retaining industrial value in the UK.
However, the policy detail remains strikingly light. In the op-ed, Burnham made reference to cities and towns across Scotland, but did not reveal an in-depth understanding of the particular challenges facing the country. He repeatedly used the broad language of “energy”, with only a passing reference to renewables, hydrogen and carbon capture. There is still no substantive indication of how he would handle oil and gas production and taxation, grid infrastructure, or even the broad balance between existing and future energy industries.
The same applies politically. Yesterday’s speech told us more about Burnham’s governing mood than his governing machine. While further devolution may be sensible policy, it is far from straightforward to deliver and is unlikely to yield an immediate polling dividend just over two years from a general election.
Equally, while Burnham promised a broad-church approach, he avoided taking questions and did not clarify who he would appoint to key roles such as Chancellor, although while a leadership contest remains theoretically possible, he has every incentive to keep his powder dry.
Meanwhile, in an indication that he feels unprepared for the role, his supporters on the NEC pushed for a longer Starmer interregnum, which the Prime Minister’s remaining backers rejected. As each day passes with less detail on how he will actually govern, their desire for delay becomes increasingly understandable.