Andy Burnham’s Trying to Fix a Car Engine With a Hammer – It Just Won’t Work
Andy Burnham arrived in Downing Street promising to change the way Britain is governed. He said the country needed a new approach, one that would put everyday living standards ahead of Westminster arguments and give communities outside London greater control over their economic future.
There is certainly ambition behind the programme.
But ambition is not the same as effectiveness.
The central criticism now facing Burnham is that he risks attacking complicated structural problems with a collection of highly visible interventions that may be popular, but are not powerful enough to repair the underlying machinery of the British economy.
It is rather like trying to fix a broken car engine with a hammer.
The noise is impressive.
The problem remains.
Burnham’s first weeks as prime minister have been packed with announcements aimed at reducing pressure on households. His government has focused on cheaper transport, energy costs, consumer protection and measures designed to make everyday life more affordable. He has also launched major initiatives on homelessness and social care.
None of these objectives is unreasonable.
Indeed, several could make a genuine difference to people’s lives.
The problem is that Britain’s economic difficulties are much larger than the individual costs these measures address.
Families are not struggling simply because a bus ticket costs too much.
They are struggling because housing is expensive, wages have failed to deliver sufficient purchasing power, productivity growth has been weak and essential services place enormous demands on household budgets.
The latest evidence of financial pressure remains troubling. Research published this month found that millions of low-income families were unable to afford essential items, highlighting how deeply the problem has affected households.
That is the engine Burnham needs to repair.
And it will require considerably more than a hammer.
The appeal of quick fixes
There is an obvious political reason for Burnham’s approach.
People want immediate help.
If a government can reduce the price of a bus journey, lower an energy bill or make it easier to cancel an unwanted subscription, voters can see the result almost immediately.
Long-term economic reform is much less visible.
A planning reform might take years to produce additional homes. Investment in education may take a decade to improve productivity. Transport infrastructure can require enormous sums before producing an economic return.
Politicians therefore have a powerful incentive to concentrate on measures that can be announced today.
Burnham has embraced that approach while insisting that the immediate measures are only the beginning of a much larger ten-year programme.
His first major speech as prime minister presented a vision involving housing, education, public services and regional economic development.
That distinction is important.
If the cheaper fares, consumer reforms and other measures are simply the first steps towards structural change, they can be defended as sensible short-term interventions.
But if they become the substance of the programme, the criticism becomes much harder to dismiss.
Britain does not merely need cheaper things.
It needs an economy capable of producing more wealth and distributing that wealth more effectively.
Burnham’s biggest gamble
The most interesting part of Burnham’s strategy is not actually the £2 bus fare or the consumer reforms.
It is his attempt to change where economic decisions are made.
Burnham has announced that key responsibilities for economic growth will be shifted away from the Treasury towards a new “Number 10 North” operation based in Manchester. He has described the move as a major transfer of power and wants the northern hub to become a centre for economic decision-making.
This is much more ambitious.
If it works, it could fundamentally change the relationship between Whitehall and Britain’s regions.
Burnham has long argued that Westminster is too centralised and that local leaders understand the economic needs of their communities better than officials sitting hundreds of miles away.
His experience in Greater Manchester gives him credibility when making that argument.
But there is a major unanswered question.
Does moving decision-making from London to Manchester actually create economic growth?
Or does it simply move the location of government offices?
That distinction will determine whether Burnham’s “Manchesterism” becomes a genuine economic model or merely a new administrative structure.
The government has promised a ten-year reform plan after the October Budget, giving Burnham an opportunity to explain exactly how the new system is supposed to work.
That plan will need to be considerably more detailed than a promise to devolve power.
Local government needs money.
Regions need infrastructure.
Businesses need investment.
Workers need skills.
And communities need housing.
Simply giving local authorities more responsibility without giving them adequate resources could leave them with more obligations but no greater ability to deliver.
That would not repair the engine.
It would simply move the mechanic.
The housing problem
Housing is perhaps the clearest example of why structural reform matters.
Burnham has promised more council housing and wants planning reform to help increase supply. His government has also backed proposals aimed at encouraging housebuilding around transport infrastructure.
That is the right direction if Britain wants to address one of the biggest long-term pressures on household finances.
But housing policy cannot produce instant results.
A house requires land, planning permission, finance, labour, materials and infrastructure.
If any one of those components fails, construction slows.
And once homes are built, the country still needs schools, healthcare, roads and public transport to support the new communities.
This is why a serious housing strategy cannot simply announce a target.
It needs a mechanism.
Burnham’s government will have to show how councils will acquire land, how construction will be financed and how planning authorities will have the capacity to process developments.
Otherwise, the policy risks becoming another headline number.
The same criticism could apply to social care.
Burnham has made reforming adult social care one of the defining priorities of his premiership. His argument is powerful: the current system places enormous pressure on families and the NHS, and politicians have postponed a solution for far too long.
But a new care system requires money, staff and long-term institutional reform.
The government cannot simply announce a National Care Service and expect the problem to disappear.
It needs to determine who pays, who qualifies, who provides the care and how the workforce will be recruited and retained.
That is not a hammer job.
It is an engine rebuild.
The cost-of-living trap
The cost-of-living crisis presents another danger.
Burnham has deliberately positioned himself as a prime minister who will help ordinary households.
He has announced policies aimed at reducing everyday costs and has travelled around the country to hear directly from people about their financial concerns. Recent reporting has described his early programme as an attempt to offer immediate “breathing space” while developing a longer-term economic strategy.
That is politically smart.
But there is a limit to how far government can reduce prices through subsidies and interventions.
If wages remain weak, housing remains expensive and productivity remains stagnant, the government will constantly be forced to compensate households for an economy that is not generating sufficient living standards.
That becomes expensive.
Eventually the Treasury has to pay.
And that is where Burnham’s ambition encounters fiscal reality.
His chancellor, John Healey, is preparing for the October Budget, which will be one of the biggest tests of whether the new government’s promises are financially credible.
The Budget will have to reconcile two competing objectives.
Burnham wants to invest and reform.
The Treasury must maintain control over borrowing and public finances.
That tension cannot be solved with political language.
It requires numbers.
The homelessness example
Burnham’s homelessness strategy illustrates both the strengths and weaknesses of his approach.
He has launched a pandemic-style national campaign designed to reduce rough sleeping dramatically by Christmas, backed by an additional £102 million and a wider package of funding. The government wants councils, charities, faith groups and community organisations to work together.
This is one of the areas where Burnham has genuine experience.
During his time as mayor of Greater Manchester, he backed initiatives including Housing First and emergency accommodation during the pandemic.
There is evidence that these interventions can work.
But homelessness is rarely caused by one factor.
Housing shortages, mental health problems, addiction, unemployment, family breakdown and high rents can all contribute.
Providing temporary accommodation may prevent someone from sleeping on the street tonight.
It does not necessarily prevent them from becoming homeless again six months later.
That requires permanent housing and sustained support.
Burnham’s government has acknowledged this by pairing the immediate campaign with longer-term investment in permanent accommodation and support.
That is the right principle.
The challenge is whether the government can maintain the investment after the political urgency of Christmas has passed.
The danger of announcement politics
This is ultimately what critics mean when they compare Burnham’s approach to hitting a car engine with a hammer.
The accusation is not that every policy is wrong.
It is that the government risks confusing visible activity with structural repair.
A prime minister can announce a new subsidy every week.
He can launch a new taskforce.
He can create a new regional office.
He can cap another price.
He can promise another review.
But none of those things automatically increases productivity.
None automatically builds enough homes.
None automatically improves public-sector efficiency.
None automatically creates better-paid jobs.
And none automatically makes Britain more competitive.
Those are the underlying problems.
Burnham needs to prove that his government understands the difference between treating symptoms and treating causes.
The Manchester experiment
The creation of Number 10 North may eventually provide the answer.
If Burnham genuinely wants to decentralise economic power, he has an opportunity to demonstrate that regional government can deliver better results than centralised Whitehall decision-making.
But success will require more than geography.
The new northern operation will need clear powers, measurable objectives and access to investment.
It will also need to work with existing institutions rather than creating another layer of bureaucracy.
This is especially important because Britain already has an enormous public sector.
If devolution simply creates additional administrative structures, the government could end up spending more money without producing better outcomes.
If, however, it transfers genuine authority over housing, transport, skills and economic development to regions capable of using those powers effectively, the results could be very different.
That is the experiment Burnham is now running.
The political clock is ticking
The prime minister has the advantage of being new.
Voters will give him some time to demonstrate that his ideas can work.
But political patience is not unlimited.
The October Budget will be a crucial milestone.
So will the first year of housing delivery.
So will the progress on social care.
So will the results of the homelessness campaign.
And perhaps most importantly, so will household incomes.
If people continue to feel poorer despite a long list of government announcements, the political narrative will quickly change.
The government will be accused of producing gestures instead of growth.
That is a dangerous accusation for Burnham because his entire political brand rests on the promise of practical government.
He has not presented himself as a conventional ideological politician.
He has presented himself as a problem-solver.
Problem-solvers are judged by outcomes.
A different kind of government?
There is still a credible case that Burnham can succeed.
His regional approach is more radical than simply offering short-term financial support.
His social care agenda addresses a genuine structural failure.
His housing ambitions target one of the country’s biggest economic problems.
His homelessness strategy is based partly on experience rather than abstract theory.
And his attempt to shift economic power towards the regions could eventually change how Britain makes investment decisions.
But all of those policies require execution.
The danger is that Burnham becomes trapped between immediate political demands and long-term reform.
Voters want cheaper bills now.
The Treasury wants fiscal discipline.
Businesses want certainty.
Councils want money.
The NHS needs support.
Social care needs reform.
Housing needs investment.
And regional leaders want more powers.
The prime minister cannot satisfy all of those demands simply by announcing more programmes.
At some point, priorities must be chosen.
Money must be allocated.
Some projects must be delayed.
Others must be accelerated.
And the government must accept that not every popular idea can be funded simultaneously.
That is the unavoidable arithmetic of governing.
The verdict
Andy Burnham’s instinct to act quickly is understandable.
Britain has waited too long for solutions to many of its biggest problems.
But speed should not become an excuse for superficiality.
A cheaper bus fare can help.
A lower energy bill can help.
A crackdown on unfair subscriptions can help.
Emergency homelessness funding can help.
Yet none of these measures, by itself, repairs the economic engine.
The engine requires investment, productivity, housing, skills, infrastructure and sustainable public finances.
Burnham now has the opportunity to demonstrate that his early interventions are not the entire strategy but merely the first stage of a much bigger programme.
The October Budget and the promised ten-year reform plan will be crucial.
If they provide the structural reforms and investment needed to support the government’s immediate measures, Burnham may eventually prove his critics wrong.
But if the government continues to respond to deep economic problems with increasingly visible short-term fixes, the metaphor will become difficult to escape.
The hammer will keep making plenty of noise.
The car still will not move.
And ultimately, British voters are not interested in how hard the prime minister hits the engine.
They want to know whether he can actually make it run.
Andy Burnham’s Trying to Fix a Car Engine With a Hammer – It Just Won’t Work
Andy Burnham arrived in Downing Street promising to change the way Britain is governed. He said the country needed a new approach, one that would put everyday living standards ahead of Westminster arguments and give communities outside London greater control over their economic future.
There is certainly ambition behind the programme.
But ambition is not the same as effectiveness.
The central criticism now facing Burnham is that he risks attacking complicated structural problems with a collection of highly visible interventions that may be popular, but are not powerful enough to repair the underlying machinery of the British economy.
It is rather like trying to fix a broken car engine with a hammer.
The noise is impressive.
The problem remains.
Burnham’s first weeks as prime minister have been packed with announcements aimed at reducing pressure on households. His government has focused on cheaper transport, energy costs, consumer protection and measures designed to make everyday life more affordable. He has also launched major initiatives on homelessness and social care.
None of these objectives is unreasonable.
Indeed, several could make a genuine difference to people’s lives.
The problem is that Britain’s economic difficulties are much larger than the individual costs these measures address.
Families are not struggling simply because a bus ticket costs too much.
They are struggling because housing is expensive, wages have failed to deliver sufficient purchasing power, productivity growth has been weak and essential services place enormous demands on household budgets.
The latest evidence of financial pressure remains troubling. Research published this month found that millions of low-income families were unable to afford essential items, highlighting how deeply the problem has affected households.
That is the engine Burnham needs to repair.
And it will require considerably more than a hammer.
The appeal of quick fixes
There is an obvious political reason for Burnham’s approach.
People want immediate help.
If a government can reduce the price of a bus journey, lower an energy bill or make it easier to cancel an unwanted subscription, voters can see the result almost immediately.
Long-term economic reform is much less visible.
A planning reform might take years to produce additional homes. Investment in education may take a decade to improve productivity. Transport infrastructure can require enormous sums before producing an economic return.
Politicians therefore have a powerful incentive to concentrate on measures that can be announced today.
Burnham has embraced that approach while insisting that the immediate measures are only the beginning of a much larger ten-year programme.
His first major speech as prime minister presented a vision involving housing, education, public services and regional economic development.
That distinction is important.
If the cheaper fares, consumer reforms and other measures are simply the first steps towards structural change, they can be defended as sensible short-term interventions.
But if they become the substance of the programme, the criticism becomes much harder to dismiss.
Britain does not merely need cheaper things.
It needs an economy capable of producing more wealth and distributing that wealth more effectively.
Burnham’s biggest gamble
The most interesting part of Burnham’s strategy is not actually the £2 bus fare or the consumer reforms.
It is his attempt to change where economic decisions are made.
Burnham has announced that key responsibilities for economic growth will be shifted away from the Treasury towards a new “Number 10 North” operation based in Manchester. He has described the move as a major transfer of power and wants the northern hub to become a centre for economic decision-making.
This is much more ambitious.
If it works, it could fundamentally change the relationship between Whitehall and Britain’s regions.
Burnham has long argued that Westminster is too centralised and that local leaders understand the economic needs of their communities better than officials sitting hundreds of miles away.
His experience in Greater Manchester gives him credibility when making that argument.
But there is a major unanswered question.
Does moving decision-making from London to Manchester actually create economic growth?
Or does it simply move the location of government offices?
That distinction will determine whether Burnham’s “Manchesterism” becomes a genuine economic model or merely a new administrative structure.
The government has promised a ten-year reform plan after the October Budget, giving Burnham an opportunity to explain exactly how the new system is supposed to work.
That plan will need to be considerably more detailed than a promise to devolve power.
Local government needs money.
Regions need infrastructure.
Businesses need investment.
Workers need skills.
And communities need housing.
Simply giving local authorities more responsibility without giving them adequate resources could leave them with more obligations but no greater ability to deliver.
That would not repair the engine.
It would simply move the mechanic.
The housing problem
Housing is perhaps the clearest example of why structural reform matters.
Burnham has promised more council housing and wants planning reform to help increase supply. His government has also backed proposals aimed at encouraging housebuilding around transport infrastructure.
That is the right direction if Britain wants to address one of the biggest long-term pressures on household finances.
But housing policy cannot produce instant results.
A house requires land, planning permission, finance, labour, materials and infrastructure.
If any one of those components fails, construction slows.
And once homes are built, the country still needs schools, healthcare, roads and public transport to support the new communities.
This is why a serious housing strategy cannot simply announce a target.
It needs a mechanism.
Burnham’s government will have to show how councils will acquire land, how construction will be financed and how planning authorities will have the capacity to process developments.
Otherwise, the policy risks becoming another headline number.
The same criticism could apply to social care.
Burnham has made reforming adult social care one of the defining priorities of his premiership. His argument is powerful: the current system places enormous pressure on families and the NHS, and politicians have postponed a solution for far too long.
But a new care system requires money, staff and long-term institutional reform.
The government cannot simply announce a National Care Service and expect the problem to disappear.
It needs to determine who pays, who qualifies, who provides the care and how the workforce will be recruited and retained.
That is not a hammer job.
It is an engine rebuild.
The cost-of-living trap
The cost-of-living crisis presents another danger.
Burnham has deliberately positioned himself as a prime minister who will help ordinary households.
He has announced policies aimed at reducing everyday costs and has travelled around the country to hear directly from people about their financial concerns. Recent reporting has described his early programme as an attempt to offer immediate “breathing space” while developing a longer-term economic strategy.
That is politically smart.
But there is a limit to how far government can reduce prices through subsidies and interventions.
If wages remain weak, housing remains expensive and productivity remains stagnant, the government will constantly be forced to compensate households for an economy that is not generating sufficient living standards.
That becomes expensive.
Eventually the Treasury has to pay.
And that is where Burnham’s ambition encounters fiscal reality.
His chancellor, John Healey, is preparing for the October Budget, which will be one of the biggest tests of whether the new government’s promises are financially credible.
The Budget will have to reconcile two competing objectives.
Burnham wants to invest and reform.
The Treasury must maintain control over borrowing and public finances.
That tension cannot be solved with political language.
It requires numbers.
The homelessness example
Burnham’s homelessness strategy illustrates both the strengths and weaknesses of his approach.
He has launched a pandemic-style national campaign designed to reduce rough sleeping dramatically by Christmas, backed by an additional £102 million and a wider package of funding. The government wants councils, charities, faith groups and community organisations to work together.
This is one of the areas where Burnham has genuine experience.
During his time as mayor of Greater Manchester, he backed initiatives including Housing First and emergency accommodation during the pandemic.
There is evidence that these interventions can work.
But homelessness is rarely caused by one factor.
Housing shortages, mental health problems, addiction, unemployment, family breakdown and high rents can all contribute.
Providing temporary accommodation may prevent someone from sleeping on the street tonight.
It does not necessarily prevent them from becoming homeless again six months later.
That requires permanent housing and sustained support.
Burnham’s government has acknowledged this by pairing the immediate campaign with longer-term investment in permanent accommodation and support.
That is the right principle.
The challenge is whether the government can maintain the investment after the political urgency of Christmas has passed.
The danger of announcement politics
This is ultimately what critics mean when they compare Burnham’s approach to hitting a car engine with a hammer.
The accusation is not that every policy is wrong.
It is that the government risks confusing visible activity with structural repair.
A prime minister can announce a new subsidy every week.
He can launch a new taskforce.
He can create a new regional office.
He can cap another price.
He can promise another review.
But none of those things automatically increases productivity.
None automatically builds enough homes.
None automatically improves public-sector efficiency.
None automatically creates better-paid jobs.
And none automatically makes Britain more competitive.
Those are the underlying problems.
Burnham needs to prove that his government understands the difference between treating symptoms and treating causes.
The Manchester experiment
The creation of Number 10 North may eventually provide the answer.
If Burnham genuinely wants to decentralise economic power, he has an opportunity to demonstrate that regional government can deliver better results than centralised Whitehall decision-making.
But success will require more than geography.
The new northern operation will need clear powers, measurable objectives and access to investment.
It will also need to work with existing institutions rather than creating another layer of bureaucracy.
This is especially important because Britain already has an enormous public sector.
If devolution simply creates additional administrative structures, the government could end up spending more money without producing better outcomes.
If, however, it transfers genuine authority over housing, transport, skills and economic development to regions capable of using those powers effectively, the results could be very different.
That is the experiment Burnham is now running.
The political clock is ticking
The prime minister has the advantage of being new.
Voters will give him some time to demonstrate that his ideas can work.
But political patience is not unlimited.
The October Budget will be a crucial milestone.
So will the first year of housing delivery.
So will the progress on social care.
So will the results of the homelessness campaign.
And perhaps most importantly, so will household incomes.
If people continue to feel poorer despite a long list of government announcements, the political narrative will quickly change.
The government will be accused of producing gestures instead of growth.
That is a dangerous accusation for Burnham because his entire political brand rests on the promise of practical government.
He has not presented himself as a conventional ideological politician.
He has presented himself as a problem-solver.
Problem-solvers are judged by outcomes.
A different kind of government?
There is still a credible case that Burnham can succeed.
His regional approach is more radical than simply offering short-term financial support.
His social care agenda addresses a genuine structural failure.
His housing ambitions target one of the country’s biggest economic problems.
His homelessness strategy is based partly on experience rather than abstract theory.
And his attempt to shift economic power towards the regions could eventually change how Britain makes investment decisions.
But all of those policies require execution.
The danger is that Burnham becomes trapped between immediate political demands and long-term reform.
Voters want cheaper bills now.
The Treasury wants fiscal discipline.
Businesses want certainty.
Councils want money.
The NHS needs support.
Social care needs reform.
Housing needs investment.
And regional leaders want more powers.
The prime minister cannot satisfy all of those demands simply by announcing more programmes.
At some point, priorities must be chosen.
Money must be allocated.
Some projects must be delayed.
Others must be accelerated.
And the government must accept that not every popular idea can be funded simultaneously.
That is the unavoidable arithmetic of governing.
The verdict
Andy Burnham’s instinct to act quickly is understandable.
Britain has waited too long for solutions to many of its biggest problems.
But speed should not become an excuse for superficiality.
A cheaper bus fare can help.
A lower energy bill can help.
A crackdown on unfair subscriptions can help.
Emergency homelessness funding can help.
Yet none of these measures, by itself, repairs the economic engine.
The engine requires investment, productivity, housing, skills, infrastructure and sustainable public finances.
Burnham now has the opportunity to demonstrate that his early interventions are not the entire strategy but merely the first stage of a much bigger programme.
The October Budget and the promised ten-year reform plan will be crucial.
If they provide the structural reforms and investment needed to support the government’s immediate measures, Burnham may eventually prove his critics wrong.
But if the government continues to respond to deep economic problems with increasingly visible short-term fixes, the metaphor will become difficult to escape.
The hammer will keep making plenty of noise.
The car still will not move.
And ultimately, British voters are not interested in how hard the prime minister hits the engine.
They want to know whether he can actually make it run.