Andy Burnham Strips Economic Growth Responsibility from the Treasury in Bid to Prove No 10 North Is Not a Gimmick
Prime Minister Andy Burnham has taken a dramatic step to demonstrate that his controversial “No 10 North” project is more than a political symbol. In a major restructuring of government, responsibility for aspects of local economic growth and devolution has been moved away from the Treasury and placed directly under the new Manchester-based centre of government.
The decision represents one of the clearest signs yet that Burnham intends to change not only where British government operates, but also how economic decisions are made. Rather than leaving growth policy primarily in the hands of Whitehall departments in London, the prime minister wants No 10 North to become the central engine for regional investment, devolution and economic development.
Burnham has described the change as a “huge transfer of power”. He argues that Britain has suffered for decades from excessive centralisation, with too many important decisions being made in London rather than in the regions and cities that are directly affected by them.
The move is also a direct response to criticism that No 10 North is little more than a political gimmick designed to appeal to Labour’s traditional supporters in northern England.
Critics have pointed out that simply opening a government office in Manchester will not automatically improve economic growth. For Burnham, however, the purpose of the project is not merely geographical. He wants to change the machinery of government so that regional economic development becomes a central responsibility of the prime minister’s office.
The government’s formal changes make that ambition clearer. According to a written statement to Parliament, local economic growth policy and elements of devolution strategy have been transferred from the Treasury and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government into No 10 North. Those departments will continue to retain some responsibilities, but the new Manchester-based operation is intended to become the dominant driver of the government’s regional growth agenda.
For Burnham, the reasoning is straightforward. The Treasury has traditionally played an enormously powerful role in British economic policy. It controls taxation, public spending and the government’s overall fiscal position. But Burnham believes that this focus on balancing the books can sometimes conflict with the longer-term objective of increasing economic growth.
In an interview explaining his plans, he argued that the Treasury’s responsibility for public finances can sometimes “cloud” the growth mission. His intention is therefore to give economic expansion a stronger and more independent voice within government.
This is not an entirely new idea in British politics.
Burnham has pointed to the experience of the Labour government under Harold Wilson in the 1960s, when a separate Department for Economic Affairs was created to challenge the Treasury’s dominance over economic strategy. The historical comparison is significant because it shows that Burnham sees his reforms as part of a much larger argument about the structure of the British state.
However, the previous experiment also provides a warning.
The Department for Economic Affairs struggled to establish itself against the enormous institutional power of the Treasury and eventually lost influence. Critics of Burnham’s plan therefore question whether No 10 North can genuinely change economic policy or whether it will eventually encounter the same resistance.
The prime minister appears determined to avoid that fate by placing the growth mission directly under Downing Street.
No 10 North is not intended simply to become another government department. Instead, Burnham wants it to coordinate ministers, regional mayors and civil servants around long-term economic objectives.
The government’s stated ambition is to accelerate devolution, encourage reindustrialisation and remove barriers to regeneration. Housing, transport, infrastructure and regional investment are all expected to form part of the broader growth strategy.
The Manchester location is central to the symbolism.
Burnham spent a decade as mayor of Greater Manchester before becoming prime minister. During that period, he became closely associated with the argument that cities and regions should have greater control over their own economic futures.
He now wants to apply that philosophy across Britain.
Manchester is intended to become the “nerve centre” from which power is distributed throughout the country. Burnham has stressed that No 10 North is not supposed to benefit only northern England. His stated goal is to improve living standards across every part of the United Kingdom, including the Midlands, South West, East of England and London.
This is an important political distinction.
The project could easily be interpreted as a government designed around the North of England. Burnham instead presents it as an attempt to rebalance the entire British state.
His argument is that places outside London should have greater influence over the decisions that affect them. In his view, decentralisation can encourage investment, strengthen local economies and give regional leaders greater responsibility for delivering results.
The policy also reflects Burnham’s belief that economic growth cannot be separated from public services and infrastructure.
Housing is one example.
Britain’s housing shortage has become a major obstacle to economic mobility. High rents and property prices make it difficult for younger people to move to areas where better jobs are available. Burnham wants No 10 North to support a major expansion of council housebuilding, using public land to reduce costs.
Transport is another priority. Better connections between cities can expand labour markets and make it easier for businesses to recruit workers. Burnham’s experience in Greater Manchester, particularly with the region’s public transport system, has influenced his belief that local government can sometimes deliver more effectively when it has greater control.
Reindustrialisation is also central to the plan.
For decades, many communities across northern England and other parts of Britain experienced industrial decline. Factories closed, traditional industries disappeared and economic activity became increasingly concentrated in London and the South East.
Burnham believes that Britain needs a new industrial strategy that gives regions a greater role in determining what industries they want to attract and develop.
This could involve investment in advanced manufacturing, clean energy, technology, transport infrastructure and other sectors capable of creating relatively well-paid jobs.
But ambition alone will not be enough.
One of the biggest challenges facing No 10 North will be funding.
The Treasury may no longer control every aspect of regional growth policy, but it remains responsible for the government’s overall fiscal position. Ultimately, major infrastructure projects, housing programmes and industrial investments require public money.
This means that the relationship between No 10 North and the Treasury will remain crucial.
Burnham’s government has already faced difficult fiscal conditions. The prime minister’s first Budget, scheduled for October 28, will take place against the background of a significant budget deficit and limited fiscal headroom.
That creates a potential contradiction at the heart of the project.
No 10 North may have greater responsibility for driving growth, but the Treasury still controls many of the financial levers needed to make that growth possible.
The success of Burnham’s strategy will therefore depend partly on whether the two sides can work together rather than constantly compete.
The prime minister insists that the new arrangement is designed to improve coordination rather than create a permanent institutional battle.
His supporters argue that this is precisely what Britain needs. Instead of separate departments working independently, No 10 North can bring different parts of government together around specific regional priorities.
Critics remain sceptical.
Some economists argue that growth cannot simply be created by moving civil servants from one building to another. Economic expansion depends on productivity, investment, skills, stable public finances, infrastructure and business confidence.
The Treasury’s traditional role in maintaining fiscal discipline therefore remains important.
There is also a risk that regional economic policy becomes fragmented. If individual cities and regions compete for government funding, Britain could end up with a series of disconnected projects rather than a coherent national economic strategy.
Burnham will need to demonstrate that decentralisation does not mean abandoning national coordination.
Another challenge is geography.
Although Manchester is one of Britain’s most successful regional cities, other areas may question why it has been chosen as the centre of the new system. Leaders in Liverpool, Leeds, Birmingham, Newcastle and other cities will want to know whether No 10 North will genuinely distribute power or simply create a new concentration of influence in Manchester.
Burnham has attempted to address this concern by repeatedly emphasizing that the initiative is intended to benefit every region.
The government’s broader devolution agenda is designed to give more powers to mayors and local authorities. The idea is that decisions should increasingly be made close to the communities affected by them.
This represents a significant philosophical change in British government.
For much of the modern era, Westminster and Whitehall have maintained tight control over public spending and policy. Local authorities have often had limited financial freedom and significant dependence on central government.
Burnham wants to reverse that pattern.
His vision is one in which local leaders have greater authority to determine housing, transport, economic development and other priorities, while the centre of government focuses on setting national goals and coordinating resources.
The symbolism of No 10 North is therefore extremely important.
Burnham plans to work from the Manchester office regularly, making him the first British prime minister to establish a substantial working base outside London. The government has described the office as a new “situation room” for improving Britain and coordinating economic policy.
That physical change is designed to reinforce the political message.
Burnham wants people outside London to feel that government is no longer something happening somewhere else.
For supporters, this could become one of the defining achievements of his premiership. If investment, infrastructure and living standards improve across Britain’s regions, No 10 North could be remembered as a genuine constitutional and economic transformation.
If growth remains weak, however, critics will have an easy argument.
They will say that Burnham created an expensive new bureaucracy without solving Britain’s fundamental economic problems.
The stakes are therefore unusually high.
Burnham has tied his political reputation directly to the success of the growth mission. He knows that public support cannot be sustained indefinitely by symbolism alone. Eventually, voters will want to see better wages, more jobs, improved infrastructure, affordable housing and stronger public services.
That is why the transfer of economic responsibility matters.
By moving local growth functions from the Treasury into No 10 North, Burnham has given his new institution real policy authority. He can no longer claim that the project is simply about changing the location of government.
It is now a test of whether a different model of economic policymaking can work.
The prime minister’s central argument is that Britain’s long-standing London-centric system has failed to deliver sufficiently balanced growth. Too much investment, talent and decision-making have been concentrated in the capital, while other parts of the country have struggled to achieve their full potential.
No 10 North is intended to change that.
Its success will depend on whether the government can turn the language of devolution into measurable economic results.
The challenge is enormous. Britain needs stronger productivity, greater investment, better infrastructure and more affordable housing while simultaneously maintaining control over public finances.
Burnham believes that giving the growth mission directly to Downing Street—and locating a major part of that operation in Manchester—will help achieve those objectives.
Whether he is right remains uncertain.
But one thing is increasingly clear: No 10 North is no longer merely a slogan.
With actual responsibilities transferred from Whitehall departments and a growing team of ministers and officials working from Manchester, Burnham is attempting to make the idea part of the permanent machinery of British government.
The ultimate test will not be how impressive the Manchester office looks, nor how many speeches the prime minister gives there.
It will be whether Britain’s regions become more prosperous, more productive and more economically secure.
If that happens, Burnham’s experiment could mark a historic shift in the way Britain is governed.
If it does not, critics may conclude that the prime minister moved the furniture of government without changing its fundamental problems.
For now, Burnham is betting that moving economic power north can help move Britain’s economic fortunes in the same direction.