WTF is Manchesterism – and can it save the economy?
Enthusiasm about Andy Burnham’s coronation as prime minister seems partly driven by his successes as mayor of Manchester, as well as his commitment to tackling cost-of-living issues. Instead of the grandiose rhetoric of ‘growth and more growth’ associated with Starmer’s reign – now viewed cynically as all talk and no action – perhaps Burnham’s more realistic localist tweaks to the economy will deliver real material improvements.
But what does Manchesterism mean beyond feel-good vibes, a shift of focus from South to North, and tinkering with transport, high street tax arrangements and electricity price caps? Perhaps such cynicism reflects the fact that Manchesterism doesn’t seem to stack up against the depth and breadth of contemporary economic challenges.
If in the nineteenth century, the Manchester School was associated with free-trade and laissez-faire capitalism, in the twenty-first century, ‘Manchesterism’ is an economic and political outlook promoted by the prime minister as ‘business-friendly socialism’ and ‘a modern and functional response to the high-inequality, low-growth trap that came from the 1980s drive to privatise economic power and overcentralise political power in the Treasury’.
Manchesterism claims to combine market-driven growth while ensuring local communities benefit, with the state running ‘the basics’, like transport, housing and skills. Burnham’s key policies as mayor of Manchester included reversing the deregulation of bus services under the ‘Bee Network’ banner, targeting growth clusters in digital/AI, life sciences, creative & media, low carbon, and advanced manufacturing. As prime minister, he has proposed sending more of the income tax raised in areas with regional mayors back to those areas.
However, critics point out that Burnham has claimed responsibility for the work of others. Manchester was already booming before he became mayor. The flagship Bee Network is already under financial strain and the major investment for it, and other investment initiatives, actually came from money provided by the last Conservative government.
Moreover, how does Manchesterism usefully guide us in terms of the national economy? Burnham has complained about the UK being ‘in hock’ to the financial markets. But with national debt at nearly 100 per cent of GDP and the interest on that borrowing running at well above £100 billion per year, is Manchesterism really just another name for raising taxes rather than taking on the harder task of cutting spending, removing regulatory barriers to growth and reforming out-of-control welfare spending. While central Manchester seems to be doing well, smaller towns in Greater Manchester still seem to be stagnating. What does this say about the outlook for towns vs cities under a Burnham premiership?
Does Manchesterism really represent a coherent outlook and plan for the future – and if so, what? More importantly, does ‘business-friendly socialism’ offer a serious path to economic renewal?
