Andy Burnham is back at Westminster: what this says about Britain’s changing political system

Andy Burnham’s victory in the Makerfield byelection doesn’t simply mark the return of one of Labour’s most recognisable figures to parliament. With his clear ambitions to lead his party – and the country – it may also represent a landmark moment in English devolution. His thumping win – taking 55% of the votes and more than Restore UK and Reform Britain combined – means the political significance of metro mayors has never been higher.

For much of the post-war era, ambitious British politicians followed a familiar path. Success meant climbing the Westminster ladder through ministerial office, shadow cabinet positions and party leadership contests. Burnham’s career has taken a more unusual route.

Burnham was shadow home secretary at the time of the Brexit referendum in 2016.
Euan Cherry/Shutterstock

At that point, Burnham’s political trajectory appeared to have stalled. Yet his decision to leave Westminster and contest the new Greater Manchester mayoralty in 2017 would ultimately transform his fortunes.

What initially looked like a retreat from national politics became an opportunity for political reinvention. As mayor, Burnham acquired something that many Westminster politicians lack: executive authority over a place.

While the powers of England’s metro mayors remain modest by international standards, they provide direct responsibility for transport, economic development, housing and strategic planning across large urban regions.

The COVID pandemic was particularly significant. Burnham’s confrontation with Boris Johnson’s government over lockdown restrictions and financial support for Greater Manchester elevated him to a national figure.

For supporters, he became a voice for local autonomy and regional interests. For critics, he was a skilled political operator using devolved office to challenge central government. Either way, the mayoralty gave him a platform distinct from Westminster.

Burnham claimed cities in the north of England were the ‘canaries in the coalmine’ in 2020’s COVID lockdowns.

This matters because Burnham’s return raises a broader question: could England’s metro mayors become an alternative route to national leadership?

Historically, Britain has been unusual in the extent to which political power has been concentrated in national institutions. While local government has produced influential politicians, it has rarely served as a direct launching pad to the highest offices. Unlike in many other democracies, municipal leadership has generally been viewed as subordinate to national politics, rather than a parallel route.

Across much of the world, however, mayoral office is recognised as a pathway to national leadership. France offers perhaps the closest comparison. Former presidents including Jacques Chirac, Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande all combined local executive experience with national ambitions. Among former prime ministers, Pierre Mauroy was mayor of Lille, Alain Juppé was mayor of Bordeaux, Jean-Marc Ayrault was mayor of Nantes and Édouard Philippe is currently mayor of Le Havre.

More recently, leaders including Matteo Renzi in Italy, Joko Widodo in Indonesia and Claudia Sheinbaum in Mexico have demonstrated how governing major urban areas can provide a route to national office.

But not every mayoral career results in a successful leap into national leadership. New York’s Rudy Giuliani, Michael Bloomberg and Bill de Blasio all failed to convert municipal prominence into success on the national stage. And Paris mayors Bertrand Delanoë and Anne Hidalgo fell short in bids for higher office. Yet the fact that their ambitions were considered plausible shows the stature that executive city leadership can confer.

Not the Boris Johnson route

England’s metro mayor system is relatively young. Most combined authority mayors have held office for less than a decade, meaning the political consequences of devolution are still unfolding. Burnham may represent the first genuine test of whether these institutions have matured enough to produce a credible contender for national leadership.

The comparison with Boris Johnson is often made. Yet Johnson’s route to Downing Street still passed through parliament and the Foreign Office following his tenure as mayor of London. Burnham’s trajectory is different. Rather than rebuilding his reputation through shadow cabinet appointments or Westminster manoeuvring, he rebuilt it by governing Greater Manchester. In that sense, this twist in his career owes as much to devolution as it does to parliament.

Burnham is unusual in another respect. His appeal rests not simply on electoral popularity but on the kind of political experience he has accumulated as mayor. The governance of a combined authority requires continual negotiation between councils, business leaders, public agencies and central government. Success depends less on party discipline than on coalition-building, consensus and partnership.

These are skills that national politics increasingly appears to value. At a time when public trust in Westminster remains fragile and the challenges facing government cut across departmental silos, experience of assembling broad civic coalitions may prove as valuable as parliamentary combat.

None of this guarantees Burnham success in parliament or in leadership. Nor is he a typical metro mayor. Unlike many other mayors, he entered local executive office after a long parliamentary and ministerial career. His experience gives him a political profile that few other mayors possess.

Yet that should not obscure the wider significance of his return. Whatever happens to Burnham’s leadership ambitions, England’s metro mayors have moved beyond their original role as administrators of transport and economic development. Less than a decade after most of the offices were created, they are becoming independent centres of political authority potentially capable of producing national leaders.

For decades, local government was viewed primarily as a stepping stone to Westminster. Burnham’s career suggests a more complex relationship is emerging. Ambitious politicians may come to view city-regional government not as an alternative to Westminster, but as a route through it.

The question raised by Burnham’s return is not simply whether he can lead Labour. It is whether England’s experiment with devolution has reached the point where governing a city-region can be considered preparation for governing the country.