Burnham’s top team takes shape as policy questions linger

Andy Burnham’s 18 June victory in Makerfield brought him back to Westminster after nearly a decade away. He won nearly 55% of the vote and beat Reform UK by more than 9,000 votes.

Burnham’s political case rests on “Manchesterism,” a business-friendly socialism built on devolution. He wants more power shifted away from London and toward communities over housing, utilities, transport and education, but his broader economic programme remains unfinished, especially on tax, spending and borrowing. Burnham has already had to row back from saying Britain needed to get “beyond” being “in hock to the bond markets,” a line that rattled investors before he said he had been misrepresented.

Burnham has said he will stick to fiscal rules, even as allies push for more flexibility inside them if he reaches Downing Street. The Office for Budget Responsibility put the UK budget deficit at £23.3 billion in May 2026, the highest for that month in six years. Any move to loosen the rules would risk higher borrowing costs at a moment when credit-rating agencies and bond traders are paying close attention.

Kate Green is being considered for chief of staff, while Josh Simons, the former MP who stepped aside to create Burnham’s route back to Parliament, is being discussed for a senior policy role in No 10. Burnham allies have also asked some of Keir Starmer’s current No 10 staff to stay on through any transition.

Rachel Reeves is expected to be replaced as chancellor if Burnham becomes prime minister, with talk of a more junior cabinet post for her still unresolved. Burnham has also been pressing for an orderly handover, including an exit date for Starmer and a transition by September. Starmer has said he will not simply step aside, and Burnham would need the backing of at least 81 Labour MPs to force a leadership challenge once he is sworn in as an MP.

In his victory speech, Burnham called Makerfield a “touchstone” rather than a stepping stone and talked about “unity and hope” over the divisive politics he associated with the United States.