Elements of the Westminster establishment have voiced criticism and condescension regarding Andy Burnham's proposal to establish a 'No10 North,' a plan that would involve transferring some functions of the Prime Minister's office out of London and having the Prime Minister spend part of the week based outside the capital.
Former Prime Minister John Major questioned the practicality of Burnham's approach, suggesting that if the Prime Minister were to vet all discussions, including those with international leaders like Mr. Xi or Mr. Trump, through a "Makerfield Test"—referencing Burnham's constituency—it could lead to significant trouble. This remark was made in an interview last week, where Major appeared to express skepticism about Burnham's understanding of the area.
Further criticism has come from commentators and former officials. One prominent commentator suggested the plan was motivated by personal convenience, implying Burnham's spouse was reluctant to move to London. Former Cabinet Secretary Mark Sedwill cautioned that the scheme might devolve into a mere "Manc-a-Lago" gimmick, drawing a parallel to Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate.
Allies of Burnham have expressed surprise at the nature of the criticism, which they perceive as rooted in "class snobbery." They argue that the opposition stems from an elitist sentiment that someone from Manchester is unqualified to run a government. This perceived hypocrisy is highlighted by the long-standing call for politicians to engage more with ordinary people, a call that is now seemingly met with resistance when Burnham attempts to do so.
Burnham's proposal aims to decentralize power and ensure that regions outside of London are considered in national governance, an effort to counter what he views as the "Missionary Model of politics" that has led to the country's current political divisions. An advisor stated that Burnham is committed to transferring power to areas that have historically lacked it, acknowledging that Westminster has left many places behind.
However, legitimate criticisms have also been raised. The proposal is not entirely novel; former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak reportedly spent Fridays working at the Treasury office in Darlington, though security concerns limited public discussion of these efforts. A former Downing Street adviser questioned the practical implications of fragmenting the Prime Minister's office, suggesting that the day-to-day demands of the role might make the planned structure difficult to maintain.
Concerns are also emerging from within the Labour party. Some MPs representing constituencies outside of the North have expressed a desire to see how Burnham plans to engage with the wider country, with one MP noting that Burnham is sometimes perceived as being too focused on the North.
Despite these criticisms, allies maintain that the backlash is largely driven by arrogance and pomposity from traditional power structures. The debate has seen references to Northern cultural touchstones, which some interpret as a condescending portrayal of Burnham and his background. The underlying assertion from critics, as described by supporters, is that individuals from outside the established elite, like Burnham, should not be allowed near the levers of power. The coming weeks will reveal whether Burnham can navigate these challenges and implement his vision for a more distributed form of governance.