Burnham’s politics: The same old establishment playbook

By Bhabani Shankar Nayak 

British politics has become as unpredictable as the country’s weather, but history is no fickle witness. It records the actions, ideologies, and principles of those in public life, offering a sobering account for working people seeking to shape their own society. Despite reactionary propaganda, marginalisation, and exploitation, the working class has always charted the path of change. Today, however, kleptocratic democracy has gutted moral, ethical, and political values in Britain. The two main parties mirror one another, producing leaders like Andy Burnham, the thick-rimmed-glasses-wearing mayor of Greater Manchester, who is now tipped to replace Sir Keir Starmer as prime minister.

But will Burnham truly break with Starmer’s policies, or simply inherit them? His record offers troubling answers. He speaks frequently about the north-south divide and uneven development, yet his actions suggest he is less an outsider challenging Westminster than the northern face of the British establishment. Will he address the everyday struggles of working people? Will he reject imperialist wars and advocate for peace? Will Britain under his leadership become a force for good at home and abroad? These questions are central to mapping the ideology of a man who calls his politics “aspirational socialism”—a vague blend of collective welfare, public ownership, and individual ambition.

Burnham’s 2010 Labour leadership manifesto promised to be redistributive, collectivist, aspirational, sustainable, and internationalist. But his record tells a different story. His support for the Iraq war, his opposition to any investigation into its legality, and his backing for overseas military interventions cast serious doubt on his socialist and internationalist credentials. As mayor of Greater Manchester, he has failed to tackle child poverty, which today is higher in the region than it was in 1821. His “Live Well” ambition has not translated into redistributive budgeting for children, the unemployed, students, or the elderly. His economic policies differ little from those of the current Labour government or the previous Tory regime.

Burnham’s tenure as health secretary deepened the privatisation of the NHS, undermining his professed commitment to sustainable public health. Rough sleeping has grown across Manchester, exposing the hollowness of his promises on affordable social housing. His call for public-private partnerships is fundamentally about securing profits for private investors, not about building a collectivist society. Mancunians have yet to see the regeneration promised by the £1bn Good Growth Fund. His neoliberal economics contradict the very politics of devolution he claims to champion, as neoliberalism centralises power and resists decentralised development.

On social justice, Burnham’s apology for smearing Liberty’s Shami Chakrabarti raises questions about his commitment to gender and racial equality. On immigration, he differs little from Nigel Farage. On foreign policy, he shares the stance of the last six British prime ministers in supporting Israel’s actions against Palestinians, calling into question his universalist vision of human dignity, liberty, and equality. His internationalism appears to be little more than a rhetorical flourish.

Burnham is not an outsider; he is the northern face of a Westminster establishment committed to the Atlanticist political, economic, and imperial regimes of Washington and the Pentagon. He is aligned with the European Central Bank and the European Union’s economic architecture, which undermines the vision of a social Europe. Whether he will chart a different course or follow the rotten legacies of his predecessors remains to be seen. But history teaches us that insiders lack the courage to deviate from the establishment’s lines. Their leadership is built on borrowed ideas, and their power is shaped by the very structures they claim to challenge.

Burnham’s future actions, principles, and policies will ultimately define his ideology and his place in history. In the ruthless world of politics, history is not kind to the timid or to puppets of the establishment. The British people, and the working class in particular, will judge him not by his words but by his deeds. The clock is ticking.