So, what difference does he make? Andy Burnham and urban regeneration
Six ways in which Prime Minister Andy could change our towns and cities
The eyes of the nation are on Andy Burnham. He is the odds-on favourite to be the next Prime Minister, subject to the good folk of Makerfield returning him to the Commons.
Shortly after his campaign launch, his status in the Labour Party was enhanced further, when the Centre for Cities found that Manchester had been more successful than anywhere else in the UK at tackling deprivation.
Burnham’s adopted hometown has recorded the “largest decline in inner-city deprivation of any city in the UK since 2010”. Obviously, that period of study precedes Burnham’s election as Mayor, when he inherited an already growing and vibrant city with strong civic leadership.
Nonetheless, even his critics acknowledge that he has supported that dynamism while looking for ways to channel it toward more inclusive ends. This otherwise sceptical piece for the Manchester Mill describes Burnham as seeming “more interested in the peripheries of Greater Manchester and “left behind” places that had voted for Brexit.”
Till Burnham would…
Burnham is not guaranteed to win the Makerfield by-election or make it to №10 even if he does. But, should he achieve these things, what would a Burnham premiership mean for urban regeneration?
Here are a few reflections and thoughts, drawn from conversations and analysis of Burnham’s track record and emerging agenda.
A German approach to tackling regional inequality. Burnham is committed to a significant programme of constitutional reform and devolution, involving the transfer of powers and funds from Whitehall to city-regions. However, his power base in the soft left of the Labour Party is wary of exacerbating inequality between places by supercharging the economies of already prosperous cities.
Burnham is intrigued by the Grundgesetz or ‘Basic Law’ in the German constitution, which is designed to limit inequality through the maintenance of ‘equivalent living conditions’ across the country’s regions. It empowers the federal government to intervene, including through financial redistribution, to equalise living standards. He mentioned it again at the recent Bennett School conference.
An equivalent of the Basic Law could be part of a big, new constitutional settlement across a quasi-federated UK. Acting as a modernised version of the Blair government’s commitment that “nobody should be seriously disadvantaged by where they live”, but this time with statutory force.
Inclusive growth and Green Book reform. One of the knottiest tensions in the current government’s overall agenda is between the drive for ‘growth at all costs’ and the concern for ‘good growth’.
On the one hand, some Ministers want to “build, baby, build” and defeat the final-boss newts that are seemingly responsible for our inability as a country to deliver new homes. On the other, we have Ministers like Ed Miliband who want to achieve good growth within the context of climate change and social justice.
Burnham is a strong advocate of ‘good growth’. The Greater Manchester Good Growth Fund requires all recipients to sign up to a series of environmental, employment, skills, and supply chain commitments. Along with his Liverpool City Region counterpart, he is an advocate of Green Book reform. And in personnel terms, there are early rumours that he would appoint Miliband as his Chancellor.
I expect some of you will find the Green Book debate something of a red herring. It is a tool that can already be used in different ways. Nonetheless, if Burnham and Miliband can push HM Treasury to go further than the recent revamp of the Green Book, we could see a wave of investments in major projects that have hitherto failed value-for-money and cost-benefit-ratio tests.
Toffee today versus toffee tomorrow. One of the immediate place policy challenges that Burnham will face is the tension between long-term investment needs and the political imperative to demonstrate immediate and visible improvements.
One of Burnham’s first place priorities will be to marshal government investment in core infrastructure, especially across the North and Midlands. He wants areas outside of the South of England to be able to launch schemes like ‘Silicon Fens’ because they have modern high quality physical and digital infrastructure.
While essential, these types of enabling investments can take time to deliver benefits and be unpopular. The Bee Network is held up as one of Burnham’s big achievements, but the infrastructure for that was developed over years, including through the development of the abortive Manchester Clean Air Zone.
There will be strong pressure from MPs and voters to show immediate and tangible improvements. Especially in the light of new research demonstrating the correlation between high street decline and populist, usually right-wing, voting behaviour.
All governments, councils, and regeneration schemes face this challenge of delivering “quick wins” while building for the long term. It’s possible to do both; but they both cost money.
Pride in Place Masterplans. At the CLES 40th anniversary event, Burnham defended the government’s Pride in Place programme in response to some sceptical questioning about the value of the scheme.
However, his challenge to Pride in Place areas was clear: ‘Go down the masterplan route; don’t treat it as a collection of projects’. He was keen that Neighbourhood Boards should look beyond their boundaries, bring in additional partners, and attract more money and investment to do bigger things than small-scale, short-term interventions.
I have worked with many Pride in Place areas, and these are exactly the messages I give to any areas in receipt of regeneration funding: be bold, plan for the long haul, and think about investing rather than spending the money.
However, in practice, half of the Pride in Place money is already committed. Round 1 areas have written 10-year plans that are based on the current guidance and conditions. So fundamentally altering the programme would be a messy and unpopular move, generating negative headlines in the “left behind” areas that Burnham would champion.
Instead, we could see local partnerships being nudged and incentivised to ‘go down the masterplan route’. For example, they could be encouraged to work together, pool resources, and evolve their thinking in the latter half of the 10-year funding period when their plans are up for review.
Regional / Mayoral Strategic Partnerships. Burnham attributes progress in Manchester to place-based collaboration across sectors, including business, industry, academia, and civil society.
He is right to do so. I know from my career and we all know from multiple studies including the recent OECD research and ICON that addressing the fundamental drivers of deprivation requires cooperation and coordination.
The previous Labour government established Local Strategic Partnerships as the mechanism for designing and delivering that kind of collaboration, incentivised by the £0.5bn Neighbourhood Renewal Fund.
I supported, facilitated, evaluated, and re-engineered many LSPs. They were far from perfect and some never evolved beyond talking shops. But when they worked, they were the natural home for initiatives like Total Place and the Priority Places Project, in which Manchester was a participant. The best ones showed what a difference civic collaboration could deliver.
We won’t see a return to the old model of LSPs, but we may see a renewed emphasis through devolution and LGR on collaboration. This could be matched with further government support and encouragement for initiatives like the Civic University Network to encourage sectors and industries to play a bigger role as ‘place shapers’.
Tensions over pensions. Burnham’s unguarded comments about the bond markets spooked investors and analysts, forcing him to offer hasty reassurance about his commitment to the government’s fiscal rules.
There remains a specific but thorny tension over the use of pension funds to support the government’s regeneration ambitions. As I know from my post-Brexit work for DIT with institutional investors, many pension funds like putting their capital in major infrastructure projects with long-term return horizons.
Yet even the most enthusiastic don’t like being told what to do by the state. As the Chief Investment Officer at Nest put it in this 2023 piece for the FT, “our job is not to support levelling up. It is to build retirement funds.”
This tension has been grinding on for years but could come to a head under a Burnham administration. The Greater Manchester Pension Fund is a key partner in the Good Growth Fund, but coming to a similar national arrangement could be much trickier.
Heaven knows I’m Mancunian now
There will be specific structural changes under Burnham. He has publicly questioned the need for national bodies such as Homes England and Skills England in the devolved landscape that he envisages.
Of course, none of this may happen. As the baseball legend Yogi Berra explained, “it’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future”. The fictional ‘King of the North’ never actually made it to the Iron Throne. And British dislike being told in advance what they will do.
Should Burnham win in Makerfield and make it to №10, urban regeneration will go with him. Place will continue to be a core part of his political brand and his government’s agenda.
Get in touch to discuss how the Hope Street Strategy Company can help you deliver lasting urban regeneration.
www.hope-street-strategy.co.uk
