Hi Neil. A really thoughtful article. I’m no fan of Labour, and particularly Burnham, but I love stats more than party allegiances, so I ended up going rather further down this rabbit hole than intended.
I think you make a very strong case that Manchester’s rejuvenation began long before Burnham took the helm. I also struggled to find much evidence of a distinct Burnham effect in the broad economic measures.
But that made me wonder whether those are really the right measures on which to judge a mayor.
Looking instead at areas where metro mayors have meaningful powers, I found much clearer evidence that they can make a difference. Manchester’s bus system seems a good example: there was a genuine problem, Greater Manchester had meaningful discretion over the response, and the early evidence suggests franchising is improving the service.
That doesn’t mean mayors necessarily choose the right priorities. Greater Manchester Police deteriorated badly enough to enter special measures during Burnham’s first term, for example, before subsequently recovering.
So I’m left with a rather more modest view of mayoral power. They may struggle to change the broad economic trajectory of a city region, but they can materially affect particular services and institutions where their powers are substantial.
Perhaps the better test isn’t whether a city boomed under its mayor, but whether the mayor identified the most important problems within their control and used their limited powers and resources effectively.
Thanks for prompting a much longer investigation than I expected.
On Exhibit A it seems that Greater Manchester, although not achieving as great population growth as England proper, Greater Manchester has "reduced the gap" with England especially after 2021: Greater Manchester seems a lot steeper (indeed see Manchester; and Salford overtaking England)
Additionally, because a lot of population growth is immigration (internal or external to a country), the outskirts of Manchester can be considered poor or not having good job prospects, hence this may explain the lack of population growth. Such areas may additionally be populated with older people, who needn't work, and therefore will not do well on (arguably all) exhibits.
With housing, Greater Manchester hasn't done around the same in house building but in 2017, Salford overtook England and again around 2021, Manchester overtook England itself.
Again on the chart: "Gross Disposable Income Per Head": from 2017 people from Manchester have achieved a premium over any large urban area, and although this has decreased from 2021 to 2024, apart from Merseyside all of the other northern areas have seen greater decreases.
From 2017 to 2025 four of the six large conurbations have seen wages fall compared to the England average, but Manchester has had the best growth, twice as big growth compared to Merseyside.
You say "For all the tall buildings in the centre, there is no Greater Manchester miracle.". This is true, there is no miracle :), but the average citizen in Greater Manchester is probably better off and has increased living standards compared to the comparator 5 regions during Burnhams Mayoralty.
As always, I appreciate you looking at the data behind the story.
I will add the "feeling" behind the story too. I was at the Good Growth Summit in Manchester in July, an event Andy Burnham was due to be closely involved in, but because he'd won the by-election the week before, he was a little too busy. As one can imagine, the vibe at the Good Growth Summit was very positive, given that he was about to change roles!
I've been involved in various initiatives around major change in cities/regions/countries in many places, but what I saw and felt in Manchester is palpably different, and the result of many, many years of people talking to each other, getting to know and trust each other, aligning around a common purpose.
You are absolutely correct that this goes back many decades, to Leese, Bernstein and others, several of whom you mentioned. The idea of "Good Growth" is so deeply embedded in Manchester that it was rarely noted during the day of amazing speakers and panels at the summit. It didn't have to be mentioned, as everybody there already "gets" it.
They are so aligned around that common purpose that you have there a left-wing local government that works closely and pragmatically (and has for a long time) with business and infrastructure and building investors, large and small.
Just as the need for "Good Growth" is a given in Manchester, another plank of Burnham's platform, increased government control of major infrastcture, is well modelled in Manchester, with Manchester Airport a great example, showing that government ownership and control can also be allied closely with good business practice and governance.
I'm 60 and so (just) remember the power cuts in the three-day week of 1974, followed by the mostly disastrous way that Labour nationalised industries, but (as we now see clearly) a lot of how privatisation was done has, ultimately, also been disastrous and now needs unpicking and a new model applied. I am optimistic that, if we get wide collaboration (including cross-party collaboration), we can apply that to the likes of water, power and rail.
If Andy Burnham can take learnings from that collaboration in Greater Manchester to the UK government environment, perhaps we can have that "Good Growth", delivered by effective and active collaboration between government and business. That was certainly the optimistic sense that I had when I left the Good Growth Summit.
PS I also notice that, as you have perhaps intimated, Andy Burnham does not take credit for what has worked well in Manchester, other than for things for which he was directly in a leadership role (eg the buses), a positive sign that he may be less egoic than the average political leader in recent history! I hope he can continue to operate as Prime Minister by holding the context of "Good Growth" and working with and relying on smart and committed people around him in both government and the private sector. I'm ever the optimist.
Pedant alert: it's Altrincham, not Altringham, althought it is pronounced Altringham.
Hi Neil. A really thoughtful article. I’m no fan of Labour, and particularly Burnham, but I love stats more than party allegiances, so I ended up going rather further down this rabbit hole than intended.
I think you make a very strong case that Manchester’s rejuvenation began long before Burnham took the helm. I also struggled to find much evidence of a distinct Burnham effect in the broad economic measures.
But that made me wonder whether those are really the right measures on which to judge a mayor.
Looking instead at areas where metro mayors have meaningful powers, I found much clearer evidence that they can make a difference. Manchester’s bus system seems a good example: there was a genuine problem, Greater Manchester had meaningful discretion over the response, and the early evidence suggests franchising is improving the service.
That doesn’t mean mayors necessarily choose the right priorities. Greater Manchester Police deteriorated badly enough to enter special measures during Burnham’s first term, for example, before subsequently recovering.
So I’m left with a rather more modest view of mayoral power. They may struggle to change the broad economic trajectory of a city region, but they can materially affect particular services and institutions where their powers are substantial.
Perhaps the better test isn’t whether a city boomed under its mayor, but whether the mayor identified the most important problems within their control and used their limited powers and resources effectively.
Thanks for prompting a much longer investigation than I expected.
On Exhibit A it seems that Greater Manchester, although not achieving as great population growth as England proper, Greater Manchester has "reduced the gap" with England especially after 2021: Greater Manchester seems a lot steeper (indeed see Manchester; and Salford overtaking England)
Additionally, because a lot of population growth is immigration (internal or external to a country), the outskirts of Manchester can be considered poor or not having good job prospects, hence this may explain the lack of population growth. Such areas may additionally be populated with older people, who needn't work, and therefore will not do well on (arguably all) exhibits.
With housing, Greater Manchester hasn't done around the same in house building but in 2017, Salford overtook England and again around 2021, Manchester overtook England itself.
Again on the chart: "Gross Disposable Income Per Head": from 2017 people from Manchester have achieved a premium over any large urban area, and although this has decreased from 2021 to 2024, apart from Merseyside all of the other northern areas have seen greater decreases.
From 2017 to 2025 four of the six large conurbations have seen wages fall compared to the England average, but Manchester has had the best growth, twice as big growth compared to Merseyside.
You say "For all the tall buildings in the centre, there is no Greater Manchester miracle.". This is true, there is no miracle :), but the average citizen in Greater Manchester is probably better off and has increased living standards compared to the comparator 5 regions during Burnhams Mayoralty.
Please note according to https://www.ons.gov.uk/explore-local-statistics/indicators/median-age .
the median age of Manchester is 30, which is the second youngest (drawing with Tower Hamlets). Additionally, Salford is 33.
This may explain why Manchester feels 'cool', possibly because there are younger people there.
I do like this post though,
Alex
As always, I appreciate you looking at the data behind the story.
I will add the "feeling" behind the story too. I was at the Good Growth Summit in Manchester in July, an event Andy Burnham was due to be closely involved in, but because he'd won the by-election the week before, he was a little too busy. As one can imagine, the vibe at the Good Growth Summit was very positive, given that he was about to change roles!
I've been involved in various initiatives around major change in cities/regions/countries in many places, but what I saw and felt in Manchester is palpably different, and the result of many, many years of people talking to each other, getting to know and trust each other, aligning around a common purpose.
You are absolutely correct that this goes back many decades, to Leese, Bernstein and others, several of whom you mentioned. The idea of "Good Growth" is so deeply embedded in Manchester that it was rarely noted during the day of amazing speakers and panels at the summit. It didn't have to be mentioned, as everybody there already "gets" it.
They are so aligned around that common purpose that you have there a left-wing local government that works closely and pragmatically (and has for a long time) with business and infrastructure and building investors, large and small.
Just as the need for "Good Growth" is a given in Manchester, another plank of Burnham's platform, increased government control of major infrastcture, is well modelled in Manchester, with Manchester Airport a great example, showing that government ownership and control can also be allied closely with good business practice and governance.
I'm 60 and so (just) remember the power cuts in the three-day week of 1974, followed by the mostly disastrous way that Labour nationalised industries, but (as we now see clearly) a lot of how privatisation was done has, ultimately, also been disastrous and now needs unpicking and a new model applied. I am optimistic that, if we get wide collaboration (including cross-party collaboration), we can apply that to the likes of water, power and rail.
If Andy Burnham can take learnings from that collaboration in Greater Manchester to the UK government environment, perhaps we can have that "Good Growth", delivered by effective and active collaboration between government and business. That was certainly the optimistic sense that I had when I left the Good Growth Summit.
PS I also notice that, as you have perhaps intimated, Andy Burnham does not take credit for what has worked well in Manchester, other than for things for which he was directly in a leadership role (eg the buses), a positive sign that he may be less egoic than the average political leader in recent history! I hope he can continue to operate as Prime Minister by holding the context of "Good Growth" and working with and relying on smart and committed people around him in both government and the private sector. I'm ever the optimist.