Following the announcement of Sir Keir Starmer’s resignation earlier this week, all the talk is of who will succeed him through the door of number 10. All the smart money (as the only current candidate) seems to be on former Mayor of Greater Manchester and current MP for Makerfield, Andy Burnham. But what would Prime Minister Andy Burnham mean for UK manufacturing?
Burnham announced on Monday that he would put himself forward as a candidate in the leadership contest, the nominations for which close on 16 July.
Perhaps the fact that his constituency is ‘Maker’field is something of a good omen and his roots in the country’s industrial north would certainly point to man who will know the importance and role that manufacturing plays within the UK economy.
However, manufacturing – and defence in particular – has been immediately thrown into the spotlight following the announcement of Sir Keir Starmer’s plan to publish the delayed defence investment plan (Dip) before he leaves office, despite calls from Andy Burnham to hold off – leading some to believe a row is brewing between the two. Indeed, the pair’s first face-to-face meeting since the Makerfield by-election, which took place yesterday, has been described as “frosty”.
Last week, John Healey resigned as Sir Keir’s defence secretary, claiming the draft government proposals would take UK defence spending to 2.68% of GDP by 2030, falling “well short” of the 3% target he considered necessary.
Speaking to The Times a day after Healey’s resignation, Burnham said alongside the 10-year approach to defence and security, there needed to be reform of public investment and procurement. He told the paper that this would reduce the welfare bill by bringing recipients into the workforce, ensuring more money was available for defence.
Burnham has consistently argued that the UK needs a strategy of reindustrialisation focused on advanced manufacturing, skills, innovation, and regional economic development. In particular, it seems his roots and experience of politics in the North West has underlind the community damage that decades of deindustrialisation can have.
He has several times highlighted the country’s over reliance on the services and financial sectors, combined with the loss of manufacturing capacity and skilled industrial jobs. Earlier this year, while still Mayor of Greater Manchester, Burnham unveiled a plan to “reindustrialise the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution” which centred around advanced materials and manufacturing, low-carbon technologies, digital and AI industries, technical education and skills development.
Crucially, he has highlighted the need for a more holistic reindustrialisation of the UK which would create high value jobs up and down the country, rather than just in major urban centres.
As part of this planned regeneration of former industrial areas, one of Burnham’s flagship manufacturing projects is Atom Valley, a large advanced-manufacturing initiative across Bury, Rochdale and Oldham. The project aims to create around 20,000 jobs and attract investment in sectors such as advanced materials, clean technology and precision manufacturing.
Previously, Burnham has also shone a spotlight of the importance of skills within manufacturing and the link between academia and industry. Talent, recruitment, retention and the burgeoning skills gap is something we dedicate plenty of column inches too, and Burnham too has frequently argued that manufacturing growth depends on strong universities, research funding, and technology development – highlighting Greater Manchester’s strengths in areas such as graphene, advanced materials and life sciences.
While it remains to be seen whether Andy Burnham will ultimately secure the Labour leadership, his record suggests manufacturing would occupy a far more prominent place in government policy under his premiership. From championing advanced manufacturing clusters and regional regeneration to emphasising skills, innovation and industrial investment, Burnham has consistently argued that a stronger manufacturing base is essential to the UK’s long-term prosperity.
However, talk is cheap of course, and the government has long been criticised over a lack of consistency and clarity around industrial policy. The Industrial Strategy, announced to much fanfare last year, is barely 12 months old, and any deployment and roll out of its more well-received elements are still in their relative infancy.
Therefore, the question will be whether a new head at the tiller of the UK will mean the baby being thrown out with the bath water and industrial policy beginning again from first principles. This current situation perhaps emphasises still further the need for an industrial strategy and policy to perhaps span government and party cycles to give industry the stability and support it needs to face down the challenges of today.
For more stories like this visit our Leadership channel
