As Andy Burnham begins his attempt to reach 10 Downing Street via Makerfield, Tom Fleming – the Constitution Unit’s new Deputy Director – discusses how a change of Prime Minister might change the government’s approach to constitutional reform.
The Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, has been confirmed as the Labour Party’s candidate for the upcoming Makerfield by-election. If he were to win – which is far from guaranteed – he is widely expected to launch a bid to replace Keir Starmer as Labour leader and Prime Minister. This has sparked much discussion of what a hypothetical Burnham premiership might look like. While he has not yet laid out a detailed agenda for government, Burnham’s past comments show an interest in significant constitutional reform. So what kind of reform agenda has he suggested, how would it differ from the current government’s approach, and what practical and political considerations might it raise?
Devolution within England
Across his nine years as Mayor of Greater Manchester, Burnham has an established record of leading calls for greater devolution within England. The Starmer government has already pursued significant changes in this area. The 2024 Labour manifesto promised to deepen devolution to the existing Combined Authorities and widen devolution to more of the country. That agenda was reflected in a 2024 White Paper and the subsequent English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026. The recent King’s Speech promised further devolution of the power to introduce an overnight visitor levy, describing it as ‘the first step in a new era of fiscal devolution in England’.
Burnham has praised parts of the government’s record, telling a recent event that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has been ‘increasingly impressive with the clarity of its drive towards devolution, and indeed the pace that they’ve put behind English devolution’. However, he also questioned other Whitehall departments’ commitment to this agenda and criticised what he described as the Department for Education’s ‘ongoing resistance’ to ‘devolve meaningfully post-16 education’. He reiterated this message early in his by-election campaign, labelling the government’s current approach a ‘halfway house’ and calling for further devolution of power and resources.
A Burnham-led government would therefore be likely to extend English devolution further than the current government has done. But this would be an acceleration, rather than a change of direction.
Replacing the House of Lords
Burnham has also called for the House of Lords to be replaced with a ‘Senate of the Nations and Regions’. This echoes language used in Labour’s 2015 and 2019 manifestos, and the 2022 Brown Commission’s call for an ‘Assembly of the Nations and Regions’.
The idea of a second chamber representing the UK’s nations and regions was analysed in detail by the Constitution Unit’s Meg Russell in a 2023 report. It’s not yet clear what specific model of second chamber Burnham would propose. But the key questions for any model will be what function the new second chamber should play, what powers it should have, and how it should be composed.
This kind of large-scale Lords reform would mark a departure from the current government’s more cautious approach. Labour’s 2024 manifesto promised a number of smaller changes, on which it has begun to make some progress. The remaining hereditary peers have been removed, and parties now have to provide a ‘citation’ explaining each of their nominations for new peers. Looking ahead, a Lords committee has been tasked with considering the introduction of a retirement age and participation requirement, and the 2026 King’s Speech promised ‘a mechanism for removing peerages from disgraced peers’.
However, Labour’s manifesto also promised to consult on how to replace the Lords with ‘an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations’. The government has made no progress in this area, so a new Burnham-led government could begin a conversation about much wider Lords reform without diverging from the manifesto on which its MPs were elected. But that conversation – particularly if it includes serious deliberation with members of the public – is likely to take time, and we are already two years into this parliament. So any significant move toward a replacement upper chamber is unlikely to begin this side of the next general election. It might instead be something that a Burnham-led Labour Party would include in its manifesto for that election.
Proportional representation at Westminster
Burnham has repeatedly endorsed changing how the House of Commons is elected, to replace first-past-the-post (FPTP) with some form of proportional representation (PR). He has argued that this would ensure election results better reflected voters’ preferences, and would produce a more collaborative long-term culture at Westminster.
Unlike on English devolution and Lords reform, Burnham’s views on this topic differ starkly from the current government’s position and pledges. The government’s Representation of the People Bill will introduce some very significant electoral reforms, including votes at 16 for Westminster elections. But ministers have thus far opposed any move away from FPTP (at least for general elections). This is perhaps understandable, given that the current system allowed Labour to win 63% of the seats in the Commons in 2024 from just 34% of the vote. But some Labour MPs back a move to PR, as do many of the party’s activists.
However, this is another area where a Burnham-led government is unlikely to seek immediate changes in the short term. In one of his first interviews of the by-election campaign, Burnham effectively ruled out seeking to change the Westminster electoral system during the current parliament, saying that any change would need to be in the party’s manifesto and get endorsed at a general election.
In the meantime, Burnham’s plans face three key questions.
First, what alternative electoral system would he want the next Labour manifesto to propose? He has endorsed PR, but this comes in many different forms. Adding further uncertainty, Burnham has illustrated some of his past endorsements of ‘PR’ with references to what is actually the preferential ‘supplementary vote’ system under which he was elected Mayor in 2017 and 2021.
Second, would he envisage that choice being informed by a wider process of deliberation within and beyond the Labour Party? Such deliberation might help to ensure any eventual proposal could command wider support and legitimacy. In that context, it is worth noting that over 60 Labour MPs are currently pressing for a ‘National Commission on Electoral Reform’.
Third, would the manifesto seek a mandate for changing the electoral system, or – as in Labour’s 1997 and 2010 manifestos – for a referendum on doing so? This choice would need very careful consideration, as electoral reform is often argued to be the kind of fundamental constitutional change that requires explicit public consent via a referendum. Indeed, polling for the Constitution Unit in 2021 found 61% of respondents agreeing that the Westminster voting system should be decided by a referendum, compared to just 10% wanting it to be decided by MPs.
Reforming the House of Commons
Finally, Burnham has suggested removing or reforming the ‘whipping’ system in the House of Commons, as part of a wider complaint that Whitehall has too much power over elected MPs. It’s not at all clear what this would really mean in practice. Party whips don’t just cajole rebellious MPs into voting for things they disagree with. They communicate MPs’ concerns to ministers, help to coordinate parliamentary business, and manage various logistical and HR-adjacent matters. Burnham presumably knows this, given that he previously spent 16 years as an MP. So it seems more plausible that he might allow Labour MPs more freedom to diverge from the party leadership, rather than doing away with party whips entirely.
Keir Starmer’s unusually tough approach to managing his parliamentary party leaves a lot of scope for his successor to appear less strict. Indeed, this may be something that unites Burnham and his potential leadership rival Wes Streeting, given that the latter’s resignation letter as Health Secretary criticised Starmer for a ‘heavy-handed approach to dissenting voices’.
Burnham’s complaints about whipping raise the question of whether he would seek wider procedural changes in the Commons. For example, might he be willing to let MPs – rather than ministers – have more control over the House of Commons’ agenda? The current government set up a new ‘Modernisation Committee’ in 2024 to review the Commons’ procedures, standards, and practices. Thus far it has been relatively cautious, publishing only a handful of reports and not yet proposing any significant procedural changes. However, a Burnham-led government might view the Modernisation Committee as a potential vehicle for pursuing more fundamental changes in the relationship between government and parliament.
Summary
Overall, Andy Burnham has shown a willingness to contemplate a number of radical constitutional reforms. But if he does replace Keir Starmer later this year, we should not expect an immediate and wholesale change in the government’s approach to the constitution. Burnham’s agenda at least partly builds on work already begun by the current government or promised in the Labour Party’s 2024 election manifesto. And where he diverges most starkly from the current government – on electoral reform – he has ruled out any change until after the next general election.
About the author
Tom Fleming is Deputy Director of the Constitution Unit and an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at UCL.
Featured image: Andy Burnham (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) by World Economic Forum.