.png)
Opinion - What An Andy Burnham Government Would Mean For UK-US Relations
- Jul 16
- 6 min read
Written by Fin Bird
Edited by Piotr Mateusz Kukula and Francesca Howard
June 19 has the potential to be a defining moment in British politics and may shape its future for the next decade. By winning the Makerfield by-election with a landslide 55% share of the vote, seeing off a challenge from right-populist party Reform UK - no mean feat given their sweeping gains across the area at the local elections last month - Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham did more than just gain a return to Parliament. His victory delivered the final blow to Keir Starmer’s premiership, and cemented his status as heir apparent.
For the last two years, since winning a landslide election victory themselves, Starmer’s Labour government has lurched from crisis to crisis, amidst a stagnant economy, devastating local election results - including losing control of the Welsh Senedd (parliament) for the first time in its history - and an unprecedented diplomatic scandal stemming from the disastrous appointment of Peter Mandelson as UK Ambassador to Washington. Since taking office in July of 2024, Starmer’s popularity has tanked, making him the most unpopular Prime Minister in recorded history, with an approval rating of -48, according to pollster YouGov.
The Mandelson Affair inflicted catastrophic damage to the credibility of the government. It was revealed that security vetting processes had explicitly recommended against granting Mandelson security clearance, citing unresolved red flags regarding his historic ties to Russia, China, and the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. Number 10's decision to bypass these formal protocols to install a political ally in Washington left it wide open to charges of institutional corruption. The subsequent fallout, which forced the resignation of Starmer's Chief of Staff, Morgan McSweeney, and the sacking of senior Whitehall officials, has effectively paralyzed the government ever since.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, then, the Labour Party has pinned all its hopes on a revival in the form of a takeover by their “King of the North”. Andy Burnham remains the only senior Labour figure popular with the public, and represents the party’s best chance at seeing off Reform UK, which has been leading in the polls for over a year, in the next general election. And with his seat in Parliament now secured, the prospect of a Burnham government is no longer a hypothetical, but the inevitable reality. Keir Starmer announced his resignation on Monday 22nd June, and, if unopposed, Burnham will be made Prime Minister on 20th July, just one month since his by-election win.
But what would a Burnham government look like? His entire political identity, and indeed the root of his success and popularity, is tied to his philosophy of “Manchesterism”. Far from traditional, state-directed Fabian socialism, or the cautious technocracy of Keir Starmer, Burnham’s vision entails an aggressive regional devolution, shifting away from the “Westminster Bubble” to achieve greater regional equity, state intervention to secure public control over essential utilities, and a substantial increase in social housing.
However, for a PM whose entire mantra rests upon the dismantling of a London-centric establishment, managing a volatile, transactional Washington will require an entirely different playbook. And it is for this reason that a Burnham government would fundamentally change the nature of UK-US relations, redefining what we know as the “Special Relationship”.
Currently, this relationship is defined by profound friction and anxiety. In Washington, the Mandelson scandal was perceived as a staggering lapse in British judgment, raising uncomfortable questions about intelligence-sharing at a time when the US itself is facing an increasingly volatile political landscape. Starmer’s pitch to the White House that a highly centralized, business-friendly Labour government would serve as a predictable, stable ally has evaporated. Instead, Starmer’s government brought nothing but chaos, and his resignation looks set to prolong the period of political instability Britain finds itself in, amidst the prospect of a seventh Prime Minister in ten years. Such events have been met with deep skepticism within the administration in Washington. Commenting over the weekend before his resignation on Truth Social, President Trump stated of Starmer, “he failed badly”, adding to a series of critical comments made following Britain’s unwillingness to commit military support in Iran.
Clearly, the relationship is unworkable in its current state, but it remains to be seen whether Andy Burnham would be able to rebuild relations, given that his policy positions appear so at odds with President Trump’s. His localism is in direct opposition to what he has described as the “poisonous”, hyper-polarised political landscape of America, which has been creeping into British politics through the force of populism, and which Burnham himself encountered on the campaign trail, in Reform UK. By using the state to lower everyday costs and insulate communities from economic precarity, Burnham intends to use Manchesterism as a pushback against the rise of American-style polarisation.
As Prime Minister, Burnham will enter office viewing the political culture of his most powerful ally not as an exemplar to emulate, but as a cautionary tale to avoid. Unlike the traditional Atlanticist leaders of the past, who eagerly adopted American campaign techniques and market-driven policies, Burnham’s approach to Washington would be uniquely guarded, viewing excessive alignment with US-style market deregulation or cultural polarisation as a direct threat to the domestic stability he has pledged to restore.
If his domestic mission is to insulate Britain from the socio-economic forces fuelling the rise of populism and polarisation, his immediate foreign policy challenge will simply be to cope with Washington’s instability and transactionality. However, he is no stranger to the driving forces behind American populism itself - back in 2016, Burnham characterized President Trump’s seismic election victory as a profound and destabilizing “cry for change” from a forgotten working-class, a phenomenon he argued directly mirrored the deep-rooted alienation that drove Britain’s Brexit vote in the same year.
This nuanced perspective is of great importance in understanding how Burnham views the challenge of interacting with a highly unpredictable US administration. Having just crushed Reform UK in Makerfield by addressing the very material grievances - such as poor infrastructure, lack of regional investment, and eroding public services - that fuel right-wing populism, Burnham would enter bilateral talks with a deep understanding of the electoral forces currently driving American politics.
However, translating this into smooth diplomacy and a working relationship with President Trump will require walking an exceptionally thin tightrope. Burnham’s challenge will be to maintain a functional security and economic partnership with an ally whose politics he openly views as a systemic risk to social stability.
Unlike former Labour leaders, such as Tony Blair, who have historically sought validation from the White House through shared centrism, Burnham’s brand of politics would reshape the dynamic. He would likely reject the “junior partner” ethos that has characterized British foreign policy since the Iraq War. In trade negotiations, his fierce commitment to protecting the NHS from foreign corporate interests and his focus on welfare reform through localized devolution mean he would aggressively resist any US demands for market deregulation.
Should Burnham succeed Keir Starmer as Prime Minister, the immediate consequence for British diplomacy would be the subjugation of foreign policy to a strictly domestic, regional agenda. Unlike his predecessor, Burnham is unlikely to prioritize international affairs. His focus on local economic resilience, such as nationalizing failing utilities such as Thames Water and reviving public transport subsidies, means any potential UK-US trade negotiations would see the UK fiercely resisting the traditional concessions demanded by Washington.
Burnham’s approach to defense would represent another critical shift. While he has signaled continuity by backing standard Western defense spending obligations, he has broken with establishment consensus by advocating that increased defense spending should be funded via government borrowing and strictly ring-fenced for British-based firms. For Washington, this suggests a partnership with an ally that will remain firmly committed to NATO and the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, but one that will entirely reject any American pressure to adopt laissez-faire economic models at home. Burnham’s foreign policy is thus built on the conviction that Britain’s global strength is entirely dependent on its domestic stability and industrial revival.
Ultimately, an Andy Burnham premiership would signal the definitive end of the traditional, London-centric, and frequently subservient approach to the Special Relationship. For decades, Prime Ministers have traveled to Washington seeking approval, often matching American foreign policy priorities at the expense of domestic needs. Burnham’s ascent, propelled by a definitive rejection of the “poisonous” US-style polarisation on the streets of Makerfield, would put an end to such a dynamic.
While it remains to be seen how such a shift will go down with the current occupant of the Oval Office, it could offer Washington a far more stable, reliable partner in the long term. A Britain more insulated against the fracturing, divisive force of populism is a far more capable global ally than one perpetually embroiled in domestic turmoil. As the King of the North prepares to enter Downing Street, the transatlantic alliance will no longer be forged in the elite corridors of Westminster or Washington, but through the lessons of domestic stability learned on the streets of Manchester.
Sources:
