Andy Burnham, widely expected to become the next U.K. prime minister, faces immediate pressure to dramatically increase defense spending, a commitment that aligns with the broader militarization of Europe's borders. This demand, shared by other NATO countries, aims to counter a more aggressive Russia and a less reliable United States, yet it diverts resources from crucial public services and reinforces the infrastructure of Fortress Europe.
Burnham, the former mayor of Greater Manchester, outlined his economic vision on Monday, pledging to decentralize power and relocate part of the prime minister’s office from London to northwest England. He described this shift as a “circuit-breaker” for the British state, aiming for “good growth in every postcode” through a 10-year plan. His approach, dubbed “Manchesterism,” proposes harnessing private and public money for investment in transport, housing, and infrastructure, alongside creating new industrial jobs and improving educational opportunities. He also plans to reform the U.K.’s privatized water and energy utilities.
Militarization and the Border Regime
The government’s long-awaited defense investment plan is expected to be published before a NATO summit in Turkey, scheduled for 8 to 9 days from today. This plan sparked the resignation of Defense Secretary John Healey 18 days ago, highlighting the contentious nature of escalating military budgets. The incoming prime minister will be expected to adhere to these commitments, further entrenching the U.K. in a global security apparatus that often underpins the violent enforcement of borders.
Burnham spent nine years as mayor of Manchester, where he earned praise for revitalizing the city. However, he has not served in a U.K. government for almost two decades, raising questions about his ability to replicate “Manchesterism” on a national scale. The Institute for Public Policy Research, a left-leaning think tank, supports Burnham’s focus on “rebalancing Britain,” with Executive Director Harry Quilter-Pinner stating that the “concentration of power and opportunity in Westminster has held back growth, productivity and living standards for too long.” This domestic focus on national growth, however, often sidesteps the systemic issues of global inequality and the criminalisation of movement that drive migration.
Domestic Promises, Global Exclusions
Matthew Flinders, a politics professor at the University of Sheffield, noted that replicating Burnham’s Manchester approach nationally would require a “fundamental shift” from a “very traditional, elitist, centralized model of politics toward something that is in many ways far more European, far more based on power-sharing.” Yet, the reality of the European model for many is a gauntlet of fences, biometric databases, and deportation orders, not shared prosperity. The EU’s “power-sharing” often translates into shared responsibility for border externalization and deterrence through death.
Burnham is the strong favorite to replace Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who announced his resignation 7 days ago. Burnham won a special election for a seat in Parliament 11 days ago and was sworn in as a lawmaker 7 days ago. If no other contenders emerge in the Labour Party leadership contest, he is set to become prime minister 21 days from today.
The Cost of "Rebalancing"
Starmer is leaving office in his second year, following missteps and judgment errors. Burnham will inherit many of the same political and economic challenges, including a sluggish economy, tattered public services, and a persistent cost-of-living squeeze. These conditions disproportionately affect the most vulnerable, including migrant communities, who are often scapegoated for economic woes while facing intensified border controls. The Labour Party’s 2024 platform, which included pledges not to increase taxes on working people, may further constrain Burnham’s ability to address these deep-seated inequalities without challenging the underlying economic order.
Opposition Conservative Party Chairman Kevin Hollinrake criticized Burnham, stating his “big idea is to shuffle power between politicians. Not fix the welfare system. Not cut the taxes strangling working families and British business. Not fund the defense our country desperately needs.” This statement underscores the welfare chauvinism and militaristic priorities that continue to dominate mainstream political discourse, framing social support as a national entitlement and defense spending as an absolute necessity, while ignoring the human cost of a fortified Europe.