A couple of weeks to go then. Andy Burnham will be Prime Minister, polo shirts will be back in fashion, and the Hill-Dickinson will be put on a postage stamp (probably.)
At home, Burnham’s agenda is not fully formed but there is a clear direction of travel. Devolve powers, nationalise industries, and redistribute wealth to the places that haven’t had their fair share. If Manchesterism is anything, and my colleague John Blake thinks it is, it is a kind of municipal socialism powered by cities with the benefits of growth spilling over into left-behind places.
There is a legitimate debate about whether leading Greater Manchester is good preparation for leading the country. Commentators have been keen to cast him as short on detail, a political chameleon, and overly invested in the north (as if such a thing were possible.) However, there can be few Prime Ministers who have coveted the role so deeply and actually ended up with the job. He has proven more fleet footed than Heseltine, less self-destructive than Brown, and more patient than Streeting.
The benefit of being out of power for so long but wanting it so deeply is that it provides plenty of time to plan. There are plenty of people that will point out the flaws in Burnham’s agenda but the fact he has one puts him ahead of many recent Prime Ministers. Not since Boris Johnson lost interest in levelling up has the country had a leader who seems to have some kind of view of how the country could be different. It isn’t perfect but at least it is something.
Burnham has been able to lead Greater Manchester through tragedy, national crises, and political scandal. Being Prime Minister is several magnitudes harder not because it needs more vision, he has plenty of that, but the scope for the unexpected is much larger.
Fully automated luxury Burnhamism
The most consequential events of Starmer’s tenure rarely took place at home. His best performances have often been abroad particularly in his support for Ukraine, and his lack of support for the USA’s excursions into Iran. While he lost a defence secretary over spending, Starmer has often seemed most convincing when he has been furthest away from the British public.
It is much less clear what Andy Burnham thinks about international policy. Burnham is not experienced in international politics. He has never held an international brief in government and plainly as mayor he has never had to worry about international aid, borders, or defence.
His international instincts are, to be generous, pretty unclear. During his previous leadership launch he described himself as an internationalist. His version of internationalism seems to include both expanding the use of detention centres and ending no recourse to public funding. He has said he would like the UK to join the EU in his lifetime while explicitly ruling out the idea that the UK should consider rejoining the EU. He is both enthused by the swagger of American politicians and alarmed by the polarisation within American politics. It is s ok for people to change their mind. It is just that changing your mind has much bigger consequences as Prime Minister.
Reform or revolution
There are some immovable objects of foreign policy that even Burnham will not be able to charm his way past. Providers should prepare for a continued ratcheting up of defence spending. The government has committed to spending 3.5 per cent of GDP on defence up from 2.3 per cent when the government took office.
The Defence Investment Plan includes reference to the success of defence growth deals which have brought together universities with other partners to build out capacity in critical defence industries. This nexus of skills, investment, local spending, and targeted investment, is right in the middle of Burnham’s economic theory, and an approach that we could expect to stay in place during his premiership.
Burnham has also committed to procurement reform. The Defence Investment Plan talks about procurement and university partnerships. There is money, and more importantly the opportunity to contribute to national security, for the providers that can present themselves as working in the national interest at the intersection of leading defence technologies and skills.
The Defence Universities Alliance which is backed by £80m of investment for programmes in universities and colleges similarly fits Burnham’s fiscal plans of state intervention to leverage local benefits. It is also worth recalling that there was some funding squirrelled away in the 2025/26 strategic priorities grant for defence and the MOD has chucked in a modest £3.42m toward the Defence Skills Programme, this time around.
The innovation problem
One of Burnham’s more solid policy commitments is to put innovation at the heart of the UK’s economy. Already, there have been movements to position work around defence within the wider research ecosystem. In an era of declining capital spending the government has committed funding toward the MOD’s internal research arm, The Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl).
One of the reasons there has been investment in Dstl is to support the organisation “act as a gateway to academia and research institutions” and that it would “make it worthwhile for universities to invest in long-term capacity- and capability-building”” The level of funding flowing to universities from the MOD stands at about £36.4m. This is out of a total research funding pot in excess of £10bn. This innovation funding is aside from anything providers might receive from working directly with companies. For example, BAE systems has six key university partners.
There is funding to be had for defence related work under a future Burnham government. Given that the spending commitments that have been made are aimed at capacity building, including capital spending, they are particularly hard to walk away from. The political salience of defence, and ongoing global conflicts, means there will be ongoing investment in defence innovation and pressure to increase that spending.
International recruitment
If there is one lesson from Starmer’s premiership it is that while the Department for Education often gets to make the noise it is the Home Office that makes the weather when it comes to higher education. The tightening of visa regulations and new compliance regulations have not only squeezed the finances of the sector but they will fundamentally reshape its size and shape.
There have been reports of lobbying efforts by the sector to get Burnham to scrap the levy of international student fees. This would help the finances of the sector but it would be a missed opportunity if this was the only focus of sector bodies.
It is unlikely there will be a significant relaxation of immigration policies. Burnham is MP where 2/3rds of his constituents voted for Brexit after all. However, he cannot have a stronger economy if universities fall over. He will either have to find more public money for universities, launch a serious reform effort, or find more private funding in international fees.
If Burnham is serious about innovation now would be the moment to relax visa regulations for the mostly high qualified graduates. It would be a noble and distinct mission for a Burnham government to make the UK the most welcoming country in the world for researchers.
Forever
Regardless of the political leadership there will remain the forever issues of universities and security. Providers will remain at the centre of debates on spying, espionage, and statecraft. There will not only be the need for ever more vigilance but communicating how their work contributes to a new national purpose.
The moving currents of global policy are constant and it can take a while for policy to catch up. In the interregnum, providers will find favour not only for what they do but for the tone they take. Burnham is interested in making places wealthier through devolved power and redistributing funding. The groups that can frame an international agenda as the centre of an economic agenda will find a willing audience. Those that argue for policy for their own preservation will not.
International policy may not be Burnham’s experience but like all Prime Ministers it will quickly become a priority. The opportunity is for providers to shape his priorities, and in doing so meet a moment of profound political change.
