ndy Burnham has pledged to shift power away from Whitehall by creating a new Manchester-based Downing Street unit, dubbed "No 10 North", as he outlined his vision in his first major speech since launching his bid to become Britain's next prime minister.

Addressing supporters at Manchester's People's History Museum, Burnham said the new team would oversee what he described as the largest redistribution of power in the country's history. He argued that devolving authority to local communities would help deliver economic growth across every part of the UK.

The speech marked Burnham's first major policy address since announcing his leadership campaign after being elected MP for Makerfield. He is currently the only Labour MP to declare a candidacy and could become prime minister as early as 20 July if no challenger emerges.

Devolution at the heart of proposals

Burnham said decision-making had been held back by central government and insisted that economic growth could not be directed from Whitehall alone.

He proposed giving regions greater control over services including water, energy and transport, while suggesting London should gain more authority over education and housing. He also called for further devolution within Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, arguing that people in cities such as Dundee and Bangor often felt as distant from their devolved governments as they did from Westminster.

According to Burnham, the proposed No 10 North unit would coordinate reforms focused on essential utilities, industrial renewal and regional regeneration.

Although he did not provide detailed policy plans, he said devolving power would act as a "circuit-breaker" for Britain and help spread economic opportunity more evenly across the country.

Housing, welfare and education reforms

Alongside his devolution plans, Burnham promised the largest council house building programme since the years following the Second World War.

He also pledged a "complete rethink" of education, arguing that schools should no longer be primarily geared towards university education. Instead, he said greater emphasis should be placed on technical and vocational training.

On welfare, Burnham said he was prepared to reduce spending but insisted any reforms would be "fair and lasting". He proposed expanding mental health support for young people receiving employment assistance and suggested that employment services should be devolved to regional mayors and delivered more through trusted community organisations.

He also repeated his proposal to reform business rates to support pubs and high street businesses, while promising to maintain sound public finances and pursue a 10-year strategy aimed at raising living standards.

Burnham declined to discuss potential cabinet appointments, including the position of chancellor, saying decisions would be made only after the Labour leadership contest concludes. He also confirmed that transition discussions with the civil service would begin this week following authorisation from outgoing Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer.

Opposition questions proposals

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch criticised Burnham's emphasis on devolution, arguing it reflected a lack of national solutions rather than a clear governing strategy. She said politicians too often shifted responsibility without providing local authorities with sufficient powers.

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey welcomed Burnham's focus on growth but warned that previous promises of regional renewal had failed to deliver lasting change. He urged Burnham to reconsider Labour's stance on relations with Europe and support rejoining the single market.

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said devolution could be effective but questioned whether creating separate centres of political power in northern and southern England would lead to conflict rather than cooperation.

Green Party co-leader Zack Polanski argued that greater powers for local authorities would have limited value without increased funding, while the SNP's Westminster leader Dave Doogan said the proposals offered little that would significantly benefit Scotland.

Join the discussion?

Already a member?

Adapted by ASEAN Now. Source 30 June 2026

View full article

5 minutes ago, webfact said:

He also pledged a "complete rethink" of education, arguing that schools should no longer be primarily geared towards university education. Instead, he said greater emphasis should be placed on technical and vocational training.

About time, a real no brainer.........kids should be offered an alternative to academia from an early stage......how has this not been a strategy for the last few decades; I truly don't know.............It's a positive.............but i wonder, does the UK have the nationwide facilities, infrastructure, manpower and related professionals to comprehensively implement the policy..?...It's a far greater task than just placing the burden on the private sector offering apprenticeships and taking kids on related field trips to the local industrial park or into the kitchens of local restaurants ..........I would be very interested to here more detail....................

There is no need for Devolution in the UK. Utter nonsense of the highest order.

There are places like Canada that have that in place, but that's largely because the country is so huge to get from Vancouver to Toronto you need a long crack flight. The UK has small land mass, you can drive from Manchester to London in a few hours.

Then you will get situations like Reform running one large area with their own rules, and another party making rules up elsewhere. It's utter nonsense.

Then there will be the cost. We already have councillors on massive payrolls, now we want add another layer of government on top of this too, along with the national government.

Just gimmiky nonsense

2 hours ago, DonniePeverley said:

There is no need for Devolution in the UK. Utter nonsense of the highest order.

There are places like Canada that have that in place, but that's largely because the country is so huge to get from Vancouver to Toronto you need a long crack flight. The UK has small land mass, you can drive from Manchester to London in a few hours.

Then you will get situations like Reform running one large area with their own rules, and another party making rules up elsewhere. It's utter nonsense.

Then there will be the cost. We already have councillors on massive payrolls, now we want add another layer of government on top of this too, along with the national government.

Just gimmiky nonsense

This is well said. The one thing that stands out is the inevitable vast increase in the civil service, costing billions and slowing decision-making.

Getting a grip on education may result in eradicating the stifling woke nonsense doled out by the universities.

As for the Canadian example, the powers exercised by the 10 Provinces (not to mention the absurd kow-towing to the "First Nations") result in paralysis on many levels, where individual provinces can essentially veto the "exports" of one province to another.

It is not at all surprising that the paralytic Canadian political system has resulted in an immense increase in state-sanctioned suicide, called MAID (Medical Assistance in Dying). Beware, all Brits.

The cost of the kind of devolution Burnham is contemplating will be enormous. It will involve the recruitment of many more support staff, and high transport expenses.

This is the consequence of having a town mayor of 10 years take over as the PM as his only vision/idea is to implement what he thinks would have been nice to have when he was mayor. What is the cost of replicating the palace of Westminster in Manchester I wonder?

Also, to stand up in front of the country after the grand achievement of winning a by-election, and then having the gall to deliver a 10 year plan to the nation before even getting the PM job and then refusing to take any questions is hubris of the highest order. Does he really intend to take over as PM and avoiding anyone asking him any questions about his "plan"?

Wow. One by-election, 25,000 votes and he thinks he has a mandate to change the Uk's political system.

I guess he has full confidence that the bloodless coup will proceed without any hitches.

The UK is a failed state. Doesn't even have Democratic process any more. PMs are crowned. Helicoptered in. Selected by elites. No general election necessary.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Ridiculous England is a relatively small country there is absolutely no reason at all to have another PM office outside of London where all the other main aspects of government are Parliament, MOD, Treasury, BoE etc. especially with all the modern forms of communication we have today.

The Prime Minister is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom not just England it also comprises Scotland, Wales & N. Ireland it would have been more meaningful and shown a commitment to the Union if there was a Prime Ministers office in Edinburg or even one in Cardiff & Belfast as well.

Manchester is only 200 miles from London looks to me like he wants the job but doesn't want to move.

As if the UK doesn't have enough problems without another Prime Minister being forced upon it.

Labour are going to regret this big time just as the Tory's have they will be punished at the ballot box.

5 minutes ago, Bannoi said:

Ridiculous England is a relatively small country there is absolutely no reason at all to have another PM office outside of London where all the other main aspects of government are Parliament, MOD, Treasury, BoE etc. especially with all the modern forms of communication we have today.

The Prime Minister is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom not just England it also comprises Scotland, Wales & N. Ireland it would have been more meaningful and shown a commitment to the Union if there was a Prime Ministers office in Edinburg or even one in Cardiff & Belfast as well.

Manchester is only 200 miles from London looks to me like he wants the job but doesn't want to move.

As if the UK doesn't have enough problems without another Prime Minister being forced upon it.

Labour are going to regret this big time just as the Tory's have they will be punished at the ballot box.

Well....might come as a shock to some.....but I would agree......London is huge in every sense of the word......

48 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Wow. One by-election, 25,000 votes and he thinks he has a mandate to change the Uk's political system.

I guess he has full confidence that the bloodless coup will proceed without any hitches.

The UK is a failed state. Doesn't even have Democratic process any more. PMs are crowned. Helicoptered in. Selected by elites. No general election necessary.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

48 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Wow. One by-election, 25,000 votes and he thinks he has a mandate to change the Uk's political system.

I guess he has full confidence that the bloodless coup will proceed without any hitches.

The UK is a failed state. Doesn't even have Democratic process any more. PMs are crowned. Helicoptered in. Selected by elites. No general election necessary.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

48 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Wow. One by-election, 25,000 votes and he thinks he has a mandate to change the Uk's political system.

I guess he has full confidence that the bloodless coup will proceed without any hitches.

The UK is a failed state. Doesn't even have Democratic process any more. PMs are crowned. Helicoptered in. Selected by elites. No general election necessary.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Bring on Nigel Farrage !!!

The UK already devolved into county councils and a lot of them lost a lot of money. How will more regionalization work exactly?

Why did Burnham refuse to answer questions from the press ? maybe because he did not want to answer questions that could damage his speach. A case of be silent and listen to what i say.

36 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

Why did Burnham refuse to answer questions from the press ? maybe because he did not want to answer questions that could damage his speach. A case of be silent and listen to what i say.

I would imagine so.........at this early, delicate stage he won't want to be taking any hits, at least not until he has all his ducks in a row.

I used to think we didn't need another General Election.

Now I think we definitely do need one.

I just wish there was someone worth voting for.

1 hour ago, BarraMarra said:

Why did Burnham refuse to answer questions from the press ? maybe because he did not want to answer questions that could damage his speach. A case of be silent and listen to what i say.

Allowing journalists to ask questions would reveal that he doesn't actually know the answers to these questions and how tetchy he gets under pressure. This would reveal the UK is about to have another empty vessel as PM, which would lead to a plunge in poll ratings. This would then cause labour MPs to realize that Andy Burnham is not the messiah who would lead them to victory in the next General election. Other Labour MPs would then be encouraged to throw their hat in the ring which would trigger an actual leadership contest.

Andy Burnam, a 2 time loser already in prior Labour leadership contests, does not want to face any competition or scrutiny before he is crowned PM.

it is the ambition of every Labour voter to become wealthy enough to vote Tory, when that doesn't happen they vote Reform

1 hour ago, MIke B Bad said:

I would imagine so.........at this early, delicate stage he won't want to be taking any hits, at least not until he has all his ducks in a row.

Best keep quiet until he's PM. Same as Starmer did.

Can't risk people finding out too much about him until the coronation.

At least Starmer led the party into a general election and won. Burnham got 25,000 votes in a seat that had been Labour 120 years. A seat that he was parachuted into purely to allow him to replace Starmer after the previous MP took one for the team and resigned to make way for him.

Its a bloodless coup. 100% engineered. Having ruined the UK Labour are now ruining Democracy in the hope of keeping their dirty corrupt hands on power.

46 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Best keep quiet until he's PM. Same as Starmer did.

Can't risk people finding out too much about him until the coronation.

At least Starmer led the party into a general election and won. Burnham got 25,000 votes in a seat that had been Labour 120 years. A seat that he was parachuted into purely to allow him to replace Starmer after the previous MP took one for the team and resigned to make way for him.

Its a bloodless coup. 100% engineered. Having ruined the UK Labour are now ruining Democracy in the hope of keeping their dirty corrupt hands on power.

The Tories changed their PM 5 times without holding a General Election. Don’t remember too much outrage back then. The UK is not a Presidential democracy. The PM is simply the leader of the party in power! It’s only been that way for a few hundred years.

29 minutes ago, retayl said:

The Tories changed their PM 5 times without holding a General Election. Don’t remember too much outrage back then. The UK is not a Presidential democracy. The PM is simply the leader of the party in power! It’s only been that way for a few hundred years.

If the Tories appointed someone who was too scared to face scrutiny and/or appointed someone who did not face any competition so their views could be scrutinized then you might actually have a point here. But they didn't. So you don't.

Also, Theresa May called an early election after becoming leader 3 years before she needed to.

18 minutes ago, James105 said:

If the Tories appointed someone who was too scared to face scrutiny and/or appointed someone who did not face any competition so their views could be scrutinized then you might actually have a point here. But they didn't. So you don't.

Also, Theresa May called an early election after becoming leader 3 years before she needed to.

Firstly Burnham has stated his intention to stand for the leadership role. Any other labour MP is entitled to stand.

Theresa May called the early election for political reasons in that with favourable poll ratings she needed an improved majority to get a Brexit deal as against leaving with no deal! Not quite the virtuous motives you claim.

Well, if you wanted to break up the UK, you would pursue policies like this.

12 hours ago, webfact said:

Instead, he said greater emphasis should be placed on technical and vocational training.

Well they used to be?

He's not PM yet and I hope never is. Vile person. Look up Operation Hexagon that his goon squad were in charge of. Look into how his millionaire wife has just won EV contracts for Manchester. He's known as Backhander Burnham. Not to mention covering up the tape gangs.

1 hour ago, retayl said:

Firstly Burnham has stated his intention to stand for the leadership role. Any other labour MP is entitled to stand.

Theresa May called the early election for political reasons in that with favourable poll ratings she needed an improved majority to get a Brexit deal as against leaving with no deal! Not quite the virtuous motives you claim.

I was just correcting your factual error. The fact of the matter is that you, the Labour party members, the country as a whole, the media and Andy Burnham himself have got zero idea what he proposes to do once he is given power and it does not look like he will face any scrutiny about this before being anointed without challenge into office. Not good enough.

He gathered selected approved media to cover his little reading from notes session, and then immediately scurried away rather than facing questions to "get back down south", which just highlights how ridiculous one of his proposals to have a "number 10 in the north" actually is.

20 hours ago, James105 said:

I was just correcting your factual error. The fact of the matter is that you, the Labour party members, the country as a whole, the media and Andy Burnham himself have got zero idea what he proposes to do once he is given power and it does not look like he will face any scrutiny about this before being anointed without challenge into office. Not good enough.

He gathered selected approved media to cover his little reading from notes session, and then immediately scurried away rather than facing questions to "get back down south", which just highlights how ridiculous one of his proposals to have a "number 10 in the north" actually is.

You haven’t actually corrected any factual error in my post, be specific! All you have done, is go into an anti-Burnham rant which is your right, but do not use my post as a vehicle.

On 6/30/2026 at 2:59 PM, JonnyF said:

Best keep quiet until he's PM. Same as Starmer did.

Can't risk people finding out too much about him until the coronation.

At least Starmer led the party into a general election and won. Burnham got 25,000 votes in a seat that had been Labour 120 years. A seat that he was parachuted into purely to allow him to replace Starmer after the previous MP took one for the team and resigned to make way for him.

Its a bloodless coup. 100% engineered. Having ruined the UK Labour are now ruining Democracy in the hope of keeping their dirty corrupt hands on power.

It's not too complicated......the country chooses a party, the party chooses (and changes) its leader.

The real bummer is MPs changing parties....now they really should stand again.

41 minutes ago, MIke B Bad said:

It's not too complicated......the country chooses a party, the party chooses (and changes) its leader.

The real bummer is MPs changing parties....now they really should stand again.

Already explained the difference with General Burnham being parachuted into his safe seat.

Next...

33 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Already explained the difference with General Burnham being parachuted into his safe seat.

Next...

Odd...safe seat?.....thought it was a nailed on win for Reform.

14 hours ago, MIke B Bad said:

Odd...safe seat?.....thought it was a nailed on win for Reform.

It appears you underestimated the hate for Starmer.

Burnham tackling the non issues 👎