Will Andy Burnham Achieve Anything as Prime Minister?

Election of a Prime Minister

Andy Burnham was elected as the MP for Makerfield on the 18th June and now stands poised to take over as the prime minister following Keir Starmer’s resignation if nobody else is put forward for nomination. Before I talk about Burnham as the new prime minister, I want to point out the major problem with the current system of choosing a prime minister. Citizens don’t vote for the prime minister and have no say whatsoever in the process. There aren’t any laws regarding the process of choosing a prime minister, at present it’s written in a very wishy-washy manner within the Cabinet Manual¹ which describes the prime minister as whomever “… holds that position by virtue of his or her ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons…” There’s no strict requirement to be an MP, it’s merely “modern convention” and the prime minister “… will normally be the accepted leader of a political party that commands the majority of the House of Commons.”

Translated from public sector jargon into English, it means the political party with the majority can use whatever process it wants to pick someone; typically some combination of sneaky backroom deals and voting among party members. As with many broken systems in Britain, this is most likely an unresolved historical relic that people excuse as a charming and eccentric piece of history rather than another embarrassing mess that nobody has fixed. It’s also worth highlighting two other important details:

1. At the time of writing (July 2026) there are 403 Labour Party MPs² and not a single one was considered good enough to be put forward for the role so they used an outsider
2. Burnham wasn’t a current MP, however through political manoeuvring he replaced Josh Simons³ and is now poised to take the role without any public choice

So far, Burnham hasn’t provided any specific details in his speeches and only mentioned broad brushstroke ideas such as “… taking power out of the centre and putting it in the hands of the people and places who can use it best… ”⁴ If he means localising politics then this is something positive.

It’s important to note there’s the world of difference between speeches and actions. Standing at a podium is very different to wading into the miserable swamp of British bureaucracy which will be the real test of his character as he’ll have to step on many toes if he truly wants to improve the country.

Remove Arm’s Length Bodies and Their Functions

If he’s sincere about fixing the country then he’ll need to abolish the hundreds of arm’s length bodies (ALB), many of which are enshrined in legislation, thus he’ll need to persuade a sufficient number of MPs to vote in favour of removing them. It’s not merely the number of ALBs that’s the problem per se, but the endless additional functions and expansion of government. Nothing is solved by an ALB’s dissolution if its pointless functions are simply moved elsewhere; they have to go too. Opposition will likely include the trade unions that back the Labour Party as they only care about holding jobs and not the relevance or effectiveness of those jobs. Similarly, there will be a number of childish MPs that automatically vote against any of Burnham’s proposals simply because he’s in a different political party. It’s a sad reality that a significant number of MPs treat politics as a point-scoring game rather than a means to improve the country.

If Burnham wishes to localise political power then the ALBs and their functions have to go in the bin otherwise all political and financial decisions must still go through the maze of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats.

Move Decisions Away from the Treasury

In a similar vein, almost all taxes and public spending must go through the Treasury which currently acts as the biggest gatekeeper for financial matters. A select few civil servants in Whitehall have the final say on public spending for the whole country so Burnham must also localise public spending and tax collection. I doubt he’ll go to those lengths and is far more likely to adjust the current systems, perhaps increasing council tax for local spending while equally reducing national taxes as an indirect approach to his goal.

Significantly Reduce Welfare Spending

This will arguably be Burnham’s biggest obstacle, both as it will clash with his own political views and because it’s where he’ll face the most resistance from other politicians, never mind the public. It’s a simple fact that throwing free cash at people is the easiest method of winning votes and once people grow accustomed to receiving free money they become very angry at the suggestion of its removal.

If Burnham is serious about improving the country then he’ll need to face the reality that unlimited cash welfare via coercive redistribution creates catastrophic societal harm. This will anger numerous groups:

• His own party, especially because it’s built upon authoritarian collectivist ideology
• All voters that live on welfare including the substantial pensioner population
• Collectivist media outlets that promote high welfare, high taxes and authoritarian intervention

This is where Keir Starmer fell apart because he campaigned on a manifesto pledge that “Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT.”⁶ If those taxes are fixed it would therefore be balanced by fixed levels of public spending and potential cuts to welfare, so the MPs of his own party rebelled and he immediately capitulated by increasing taxes; thus lying to the public. I believe this topic is where Burnham’s career as the prime minister will be determined, because if he either cuts welfare spending or transforms it from cash payments into something productive then he would be the first prime minister to possess a spine since Winston Churchill. On the other hand, if he kowtows to pressure to continue monumental public spending on unproductive dead-ends then he’ll walk the same path as Starmer and perpetuate the UK’s decay.

Decrease Taxes on Work

One of the factors hobbling Britain’s economy is the high level of taxes on work. Income tax currently reaches 45% (60% effective tax between £100k to £125k)⁷ which is devastating to work as an activity. Wages have a positive correlation with a person’s economic value, so when the government extorts half of the payment for someone’s work he’ll look to other options such as becoming a rent-seeking landlord, intentionally limiting his working hours or engage in creative accounting; all of which are absurd outcomes. Let’s not forget National Insurance which gradually morphed into a de facto second income tax since the 1970s so the government has another dip into one’s earnings.

If Burnham is keen to get Britain moving, he’ll need to reduce taxes on work, especially as productive work is the best personal method out of poverty.

Guide Banks Towards Business Lending

This is another critical area that Burnham must address as prime minister if he wants to help the country. The tapeinocracy book has a chapter identifying the problems with Britain’s economy and one of the major indicators was the flatlining of productivity after the 2008 global financial crisis that still hasn’t recovered as of 2026. Banks essentially stopped lending to businesses with net negative lending between 2008 to 2016, instead banks focused even more on mortgages and financial intermediary services.

Banks are private businesses so Burnham wouldn’t be able to control them directly but he could guide them towards productive business lending by exploiting the basic fact that banks will place their money wherever it’s most profitable. This means Burnham must come up with schemes that make lending to productive business more attractive than the current avenues of mortgages, auxiliary financial services and government bonds.

Available Options

Burnham is unlikely to go as far as tapeinocracy’s genuine solutions that ultimately resolve the underlying causes of society’s problems, but he still has many options that would help Britain’s economy, especially via government actions such as:

• Remove all government schemes that subsidise the property market, for example Right to Buy and Help to Buy
• Remove the ludicrous planning permission system that makes construction almost impossible
• Stop mass immigration that increases the population at a rate far beyond the supporting infrastructure
• Significantly reduce taxes on work and remove the progressively harsh bands
• Drastically cut welfare or change it from direct cash payments into productive forms such as funding for learning useful skills
• Use a carrot and stick approach to guide banks towards productive business lending (upgrade equipment and staff training) and away from asset lending (mortgages and bonds)
• Organise contractual agreements between large companies and trade unions stating that newly invested money must first build the company’s productive output and then pay rises will be guaranteed at a set time in the near future from the profits of those investments

Predictions

Whenever I make predictions involving people in general, they exist in two forms: one is optimistic that predicts the best genuinely positive outcome and the other is cynical of what’s most likely to really happen. If Burnham is assigned the role of prime minister then my two predictions are as follows:

• Optimistic: he introduces genuine improvements to the country by reducing bureaucracy, decreasing unproductive public spending, decreasing taxes, localises political and financial decision-making and guides the banks to productive business lending; all helping to pull Britain out of the wet clay in which it’s been stuck for decades
• Cynical: he spends all of his time as prime minister making empty speeches and achieves nothing, either due to a fear of the potential backlash from implementing real solutions as happened with Starmer, or because the extreme inertia of the bureaucratic system makes it impossible to perform any actions without breaking the law; thus nothing will improve and another prime minister will be chosen before the general election in 2029

I’m not a bitter, resentful person and politics isn’t a zero sum game so I’d like to see progress in this country and if Burnham can deliver it then that would be fantastic. Unfortunately, my fear is that real progress requires swinging a sledgehammer at the status quo and Burnham won’t have the courage to do what’s necessary because he’ll be ostracised by his ideological peers and backers. An interesting outcome would be if he tries to achieve real solutions but is held up at every turn, then publicly names and shames the people/systems impeding him. At least it would provide explanations during his tenure for why nothing improves and gives the public the real target for their anger.

I don’t support any politicians or political parties, the tapeinocracy book makes it very clear that politicians and bureaucrats are responsible for this country’s predicaments. Still, it would be nice to see Burnham achieve significant improvements if only to prove my cynical predictions wrong for once in favour of my optimistic predictions.

References

1. Cabinet Office (2010) Cabinet Manual.
2. UK Parliament (2026) State of the Parties.
3. Sandford, M. (2026) Andy Burnham and Makerfield: Can a mayor be an MP?
4. Andy Burnham For Us (2026) Andy Burnham Speech at the People’s History Museum, Manchester - 29 June 2026.
5. HM Treasury (2026) Public Spending Statistics: May 2026.
6. Labour Party (2024) Labour Party Manifesto 2024, page 21.
7. UK Gov (2026) Income Tax Rates and Personal Allowances.

Return to the top of the page.