Who pays for Manchesterism?

Andy Burnham is now Prime Minister, and the country soon to discover what “Manchesterism” means when applied to the British state. Burnham’s nine years as mayor, alongside his earlier national record, offer a clear guide to the instincts he is likely to bring to No.10: a willingness to raise taxes, expand the state and prioritise policies that sound good but ultimately deliver poor value for money.

It is revealing that after being elected mayor in 2017, one of Burnham’s first acts was to impose a new charge on households in Greater Manchester. The new mayoral precept was initially set at £8 for the average band D property, funding the mayoral operation, including Burnham’s £110,000 salary. As so often happens with new charges, it did not remain modest for long. The charge more than doubled the following year, rising again in 2020-21, 2022-23, 2025-26 and 2026-27. By the time Burnham resigned to contest the Makerfield by-election, it had risen to £61.75, nearly eight times the original amount in less than a decade.

As residents paid more, the mayor built an increasingly elaborate network of advisers, commissioners and panels funded by taxpayers. These included a young person’s advisor paid £500 per day, a transport commissioner and an active travel commissioner each paid £650 per day, and an LGBTQ+ advisor paid £177 per day. He also established seven equality panels facilitated by “culturally appropriate organisations” which cost £392,435 a year. Taxpayers can only speculate how much larger that ecosystem could become when he takes control of Whitehall.

The mayoral precept was not the only tax rise implemented by Burnham. As mayor, he raised every tax under his control. The band D police precept rose from £162.30 when he entered office to £285.30 by the time he left, a 76 per cent increase. At the same time, the fire precept increased from £59.95 to £92.20, a 54 per cent increase. Both increases substantially outstripped cumulative inflation of 37.5 per cent during that period.

Even that understates his tax-raising ambition, as it only includes the charges he managed to implement. In 2019, Burnham proposed a clean air zone for Greater Manchester which would impose a daily charge on commercial vehicles that did not comply with environmental standards: £7.50 per day for taxis, £10 per day on vans and £60 per day on buses, coaches and heavy goods vehicles. These would have added thousands of pounds a year to local businesses’ costs.

Unsurprisingly, it led to major pushback, including a petition with over 60,000 signatures. The mad scheme was only withdrawn after it emerged that it wouldn’t even accomplish its original objective of reducing pollution. In a major U-turn, Burnham called the policy he previously campaigned on “not morally defensible”. Unfortunately for taxpayers, this came only after 1,300 signs and enforcement cameras had been erected, with the total cost estimated at over £62 million.

It is telling that the mayor constantly touts how much he has been able to extract from Westminster

Even then, the mayor did not abandon the scheme altogether. His compromise was to demand even more money from central government, including £130 million to incentivise people to upgrade their vehicles. It is telling that the mayor constantly touts how much he has been able to extract from Westminster. Justifying the mayoral precept, he boasted that he had secured more than £250 million of extra funding from the government. Yet every pound given to Greater Manchester must be taxed, borrowed or withheld from taxpayers elsewhere. When he becomes prime minister, there will be no higher tier of government from which to wrangle money. Burnham will soon be responsible for the entire balance sheet. Yet his record in central government offers little reassurance that value for taxpayers will come first.

One of Burnham’s signature policies as culture secretary was the free swimming programme. The £140 million initiative, launched in the run-up to the 2012 Olympics, aimed to increase physical activity by making swimming free for over-60s and under-16s, alongside funding improvements to swimming facilities.

The policy had everything a politician could want: a wholesome objective, an Olympic association, and an easily communicated offer. The results were less impressive. It cost taxpayers £535 for every additional swimmer aged 60 or over and £172 for each additional swimmer aged 16 or under. For every £1 spent, only 53p to 82p of value was generated in the form of lower healthcare costs and fewer lost productive days. Usually, a scheme would need to generate at least £1.50 to be deemed good value for money.

This may be the central risk of a Burnham premiership. “Manchesterism” sounds like a bold new idea, but it may amount to little more than higher taxes, greater spending and a larger state that still fails to deliver value for taxpayers. As mayor, Burnham was able to send the bill to Westminster. From Downing Street, Burnham will have nowhere left to send it — except directly to you.