All Hail the King of the North? 

The King is dead. 

For all its internal viciousness, the fall of Keir Starmer and rise of Andy Burnham to Prime Minister was surprisingly smooth and “bloodless”, a rare moment at the top of British politics that carried a “blink and you’ll miss it” energy. Starmer did not, as he was predicted, fight for his leadership, nor did any other Labour hopeful challenge Burnham, Josh Simon’s resignation in Makerfield was perfectly timed to pave the way to Downing Street. 

Future historians may look back on the “Starmer years” and wonder what went wrong for the former PM. On paper, there were many things that seemed to have been going well for his government. NHS waiting lists were reduced in a way unseen since before the pandemic, renters’ rights saw significant reform, the minimum wage increased, and the hot-button issue of net migration figures saw reductions of 82% on their all time peak under the Conservatives. 

But, arguably, Starmer’s blunders both in policy and communications permanently cost him public support, albeit permanently. Starmer will not be remembered for any of the above achievements, or even for something as mundane as “economic stability” following periods of volatile inflation, he will be remembered as a man lacking in the dynamism and energy required for leadership, a man directed from the shadows by his aides and politburo, a man who did politics-by-focus group and had no visible vision for Britain’s future. That is without mentioning his foreign relations, for Starmer will likely go down in history as the human rights lawyer who went on national radio to declare that a nation “has that right” to inflict collective punishment. 

This transition of power leaves Britain with a series of unknowns. It is unarguable that Andy Burnham possesses the “flash” of political leadership, turning around the government’s plummeting approval ratings in his first week in office. Even the moment of his ascension seemed ‘heroic’, a train speeding towards the capital to deliver a true progressive future seems analogous to the arrival of another charismatic leader in St Petersburg. It is the lack of baggage Burnham has which seemingly makes him Labour’s ideal choice to face down Nigel Farage at the next general election, his time serving as Greater Manchester Mayor proved that political relevance and recognisability were not restricted to Westminster, and his long hiatus from national government allowing an element of freshness and relatability to a man who is in all senses a career politician. 

What is noticeable about Andy Burnham is that he speaks to ideology in a way otherwise foreign to the UK’s leadership class. Economic orthodoxy has, for forty years, been simply orthodoxy, the assumed middle “sensibility” from which deviation was either ridiculous or threatening to the very fabric of society. Figures like Jeremey Corbyn who explicitly “named” neoliberalism as a political enemy and set of structures to be dismantled have found their political capital on fire and name dragged through the legacy media, the same process is happening in real time to Zack Polanski. So why does Burnham have the space and goodwill to discuss structural change? It could possibly be the use of regionalism as a shield, vaguely defined “Manchesterism” as a counterforce to “establishment” politics, from a Cambridge graduate and an elite-educated cabinet. Burnham may declare that the days of Whitehall refusing to “Look North” are over, but when even the National Opera had to be dragged kicking and screaming to Manchester, bringing the civil service around to the vision may take significantly more of a concerted effort. 

It appears that this commitment to rolling back the neoliberal reforms of previous administrations for Burnham is not simply rhetorical. His pledge to transfer shares of income tax takes to local administration could shift the balance of power seismically. In contrast to her record of privatisation, Thatcher’s “nationalisation” of business rates and curtailing of local government powers, which paved the way for national government to strip local authorities of funding in 2009, appears to be being directly combated by a man who understands the challenges of running one of the UK’s poorest regions, under a version of Reeve’s “fiscal rules” which genuinely do come from a higher power, rather than self imposition. The promises of “change” which Labour were elected on in 2024 appear to be bearing fruits.

Even the very first signals from Burnham in Number 10 appeared to be formulated as attacks on the Starmer administration, and an active effort to create distance. When “fiscal constraint” was used as an excuse to maintain the two-child benefit cap, Burnham’s government committed to end rough sleeping on day 1. Cabinet ministers who refused to call upon Starmer to resign were left in the cold, and those who turned on him were rewarded with ministerial positions. The message is clear, Burnham’s government’s first impressions to the public look to serve the most vulnerable in society, where his predecessor looked to address the bond market. This messaging 180 does not appear accidental, and it is aimed as much towards enemies in the Party as it is towards opinion polls.

At the £10,000–tab leaving party held for Starmer in Kentish Town, attendees reportedly discussed how Burnham’s reward of those who came out against his predecessor would come back to haunt him, but in the meantime, the road forward for Andy Burnham appears open. Long Live the King.

This all seems fantastical, a captivating injection of optimism into the otherwise bleakness and backstabbing which coloured British politics for years, but it may just be that after 6 Prime Ministers in 16 years, the average of whom serving less than half their terms, the public have simply forgotten what a honeymoon period is supposed to feel like.