In the current political lull, Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham has initiated a series of policy announcements, drawing both praise for their immediate appeal and criticism for their underlying substance and potential implications.
Burnham's recent proposals include an energy price cut of £45, tax breaks for state pensioners, reductions in business rates for pubs, social clubs, and live music venues, a cap on bus fares at £2, and a multi-million-pound initiative to combat rough sleeping. These measures have been described by some as a "political sugar rush."
However, environmental campaigners have raised concerns about subsidizing electricity consumption during a climate crisis, noting that such measures might not benefit households reliant on gas for heating. Questions have also been raised regarding the pension proposals, with accusations of creating a two-tier taxation system and penalizing individuals who saved for retirement. The blanket cap on bus fares has also been criticized by some as contradicting Burnham's platform of decentralization, by removing power from local authorities.
Further scrutiny has fallen on the hospitality sector initiative, with the exclusion of restaurants from business rate cuts being labeled as unfair, particularly as many pubs now also serve food.
"No10 North" Initiative Sparks Controversy
Perhaps the most divisive action has been the establishment of a "No10 North" office, intended to operate in parallel with the Prime Minister's Downing Street office. This move has led to perceptions that Burnham intends to govern for the North of England at the expense of the South. Critics point to the significant tax revenue generated by London and the South East, suggesting that policies aimed at "levelling up" the North could disproportionately impact these regions.
The perceived lack of critical coverage from mainstream media outlets, in contrast to how a Conservative Prime Minister might be treated under similar circumstances, has also been noted. Burnham has faced questions regarding his policy plans, defense spending commitments, and the necessity of relocating government functions.
The "No10 North" project, with its associated costs for premises, security, and logistics, has been characterized as a "vanity project." While Burnham's team claims these costs are within existing departmental budgets, estimates suggest a long-term expenditure of approximately £100 million. Concerns have also been raised about the additional time, expense, and inconvenience involved in shuffling civil servants, ministers, and staff between London and Manchester, including Burnham's own travel arrangements.
The author of the notes suggests that Burnham's actions stem from a desire to maintain a "nice-guy" image and position himself as a centrist figure. This approach is contrasted with the realities of governance, which often necessitate unpopular decisions. The article notes that Burnham's political capital is derived from a small electorate, highlighting the significant gap between his current popularity and the challenges of leading the country.
Concerns have also been voiced about potential future policies, such as a "death tax" to fund social care, and criticism of his advice to young people regarding university aspirations, despite his own Oxbridge education. The relocation of government machinery to Manchester on a whim has also drawn criticism.
The overall assessment suggests that Burnham's strategy of implementing popular, albeit potentially superficial, policies and establishing a parallel seat of government may face significant challenges as the demands of national leadership become more apparent.