The blueprint for a post-Thatcher Britain is being laid out by Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, in his 'Rewiring Britain' plan – a comprehensive vision to fundamentally restructure the British state. Dubbed a 'blueprint for Labour', the proposal promises to challenge decades of economic and political centralisation since Margaret Thatcher's era. Mr Burnham's proposals aim to reverse the dominance of market-led provision, instead placing power in the hands of regional authorities who can tailor policies to local needs.
At its core is a radical devolution programme that goes beyond mere power transfers and funding to local councils. Instead, regions will take charge of entire systems, including skills and employment support, complete with financial resources, legal authority, and personnel. This model seeks to empower communities by giving them control over their own affairs, allowing for growth tailored to regional opportunities.
The second major pillar of Mr Burnham's programme addresses the legacy of Thatcher-era economic policies that have disproportionately benefited asset owners and privatised essential services. His plan calls for greater public control over these essentials to reduce costs for citizens and enhance living standards. This could involve stringent regulation or outright public ownership – a position designed to balance Labour's cautious approach with widespread public frustration.
Mr Burnham also seeks to redefine 'aspiration' within the Labour Party, shifting focus from traditional goals like home ownership towards quality council housing, technical education, and local advancement opportunities. This includes commitments to increasing social housing provision, revitalising high streets, and ensuring good public infrastructure – all aimed at making working-class aspiration more inclusive.
However, critics point out that implementing such an ambitious agenda would require significant institutional capacity, fiscal flexibility, and additional funding. Furthermore, concerns have been raised that without robust state powers over land ownership and development, growth could primarily benefit landlords, potentially pricing out local residents despite the policy's good intentions.