Andy Burnham, the man dubbed King of the North, chief evangelist of Manchesterism and pioneer of ‘No. 10 up ’ere’, has made clear where his geographical loyalties lie.
In sweeping away the remnants of Starmer’s two years in office and putting together his own team, the Prime Minister has now assembled what could be the most northerly cabinet in modern British political history.
The case for a predominantly northern cabinet would be far easier to swallow if those who had reached the top table represented an exceptional concentration of political talent. Instead, what a ragbag we have here
Some 13 of the 23 ministers in his cabinet represent constituencies in northern England – including those who hold three of the four great offices of state: Prime Minister, Chancellor and Foreign Secretary. Little wonder, then, that the cabinet table is now being tortuously branded – wait for it – ‘Mancminster’.
As a Mancunian myself (someone who, unlike Andy Burnham, Angela Rayner and others, has never left the North) you might expect this shifting of the political compass would be warmly welcomed. After all, with so many around the cabinet table familiar, say, with the Trafford Centre, this should surely spell the end of the Westminster bubble.
Yet the irony is that, by deploying an overly focused northern approach, that grievance simply shifts to the other end of the M1. If a government’s outlook is shaped primarily by geographical loyalties, how can it credibly claim to act in the interests of the whole country? The fault lines Andy Burnham has spent years attacking will simply be reversed. Little wonder some Labour MPs are said to have privately expressed concerns that the Prime Minister’s focus on the north risks alienating other parts of the country that feel left behind.
To be clear, the issue is not a glut of northern voices in the cabinet. The Labour party has always been underpinned by support in its northern heartlands, with a consequent yield of MPs from the north. The real question is whether the Prime Minister’s fixation with the north, coupled with the joy of members securing cabinet posts, risks encouraging a narrow perspective. It is the groupthink, not geography, which is potentially troubling.
Given Britain’s parlous state – a ballooning welfare bill, an army shrunk to its smallest size since the Napoleonic wars, the highest tax burden in 70 years and a spiralling cost of living – choosing your team in a meritocratic way has never mattered more.
To his credit, Burnham did ignore calls to replace Rachel Reeves with another female Chancellor in order to preserve the gender balance – despite criticism that doing otherwise would set back the cause of women. It was a reminder that appointments should be determined by ability, not identity.
But can we say the same when it comes to geography? The case for a predominantly northern cabinet would be far easier to swallow if those who had reached the top table represented an exceptional concentration of political talent. Instead, what a ragbag we have here.
Consider Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne), who, while serving as Housing Secretary, was found by an independent ethics investigation to have breached the Ministerial Code in relation to the underpayment of around £40,000 in stamp duty on a property purchase. Louise Haigh (Sheffield Heeley) resigned after details of a previous fraud conviction emerged. Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde), attracted criticism after describing himself as a solicitor despite never having qualified. And Ed Miliband (Doncaster North) was resoundingly rejected by voters at the 2015 general election. Hardly a persuasive and compelling argument for a geo-tocracy.
Government should be formed by those with the greatest skills, integrity, experience and judgement. Not to satisfy regional quotas or to right a long-held grievance by our chippy Prime Minister.
It has already been suggested that Mr Burnham will work from Manchester at least one day a week at the new ‘No. 10 North’, in order to take power out of Whitehall and redistribute it to the regions. But the proposed move is not landing. A YouGov survey, commissioned after he announced the flagship Manchester office, found that only 23 per cent thought he would legislate in the interests of the whole country as Prime Minister.
Perhaps this is the time, then, for Mr Burnham to remind himself of the characteristics which mark out this part of the world. Namely, that we applaud hard-won success. But we want what’s fair, not what’s fake.
As ‘Manc-minster’ begins the work of government, and with an increasing clamour for a general election, the Prime Minister would do well to remember that regional tokenism is not the way to run a country.
