Andy Burnham is one of Labour’s most popular politicians. As Mayor of Greater Manchester, he has made housing and homelessness central to his public image. Yet his record raises an important question. If Burnham were ever to become Prime Minister, would Labour’s current housing policies be enough to solve the problems he says have held Greater Manchester back?
The starting point is Burnham’s own record.
When he became Mayor in 2017, Burnham promised to end rough sleeping by 2020. That target was not met. To be fair, there was real progress. The official rough sleeping count across Greater Manchester fell from 268 people in 2017 to 89 in 2021, the lowest level recorded since 2013.
Programmes such as A Bed Every Night and Housing First clearly helped many vulnerable people. Burnham deserves credit for making homelessness a political priority at a time when too many leaders ignored the issue.
However, the improvement did not last. The official count rose to 149 people in 2023, and subsequent reporting suggests rough sleeping has increased for four consecutive years since the 2021 low point. While levels remain below the 2017 peak, rough sleeping has not been eliminated and homelessness services continue to face heavy pressure.
Supporters of Burnham argue, with some justification, that he inherited problems created by decades of national policy failures, welfare cuts and a shortage of affordable homes. Yet Burnham himself chose to make homelessness one of the defining tests of his mayoralty. Judged against the ambition he set out, the results are mixed.
Housing affordability presents a similar picture.
Manchester has experienced strong economic growth and major regeneration during Burnham’s time in office. New buildings have transformed parts of the city centre and attracted investment from across the UK and beyond.
But many residents feel the city has become harder to afford. Since 2017, average house prices have risen from around £148,000 to about £250,000, an increase of roughly 70 per cent. Average private rents have risen by around 50 to 60 per cent over the same period and now stand at roughly £1,350 per month.
By contrast, average earnings across the UK have increased by around 35 to 40 per cent. Put simply, housing costs have risen much faster than wages. For many local people, owning or renting a home has become more difficult despite the city’s economic success.
Burnham’s response has often been that mayors do not have enough powers or funding to tackle these challenges effectively. He has repeatedly called for greater control over housing budgets, planning, landlord regulation and homelessness services.
That argument deserves serious consideration. England remains one of the most centralised countries in Europe, and local leaders often lack the tools needed to address local problems.
Yet Burnham’s argument also creates a challenge for his wider political ambitions.
If he became Prime Minister, many of the limits he currently points to could be removed. A Burnham government could devolve more housing powers, strengthen planning systems, give councils and mayors greater control over housing investment and provide longer-term funding settlements.
The difficulty is that many of these ideas are already broadly reflected in Labour’s 2024 manifesto. Labour has pledged planning reform, stronger devolution, compulsory purchase reform and the construction of 1.5 million homes.
The deeper question is whether that is enough.
Burnham has frequently argued that homelessness is driven by a shortage of social housing. If that diagnosis is correct, planning reform alone is unlikely to solve the problem. A government following Burnham’s own logic would probably need a much larger programme of council and social housebuilding than Labour has currently proposed.
Similarly, Burnham has criticised welfare policies that leave people unable to afford housing. Yet Labour’s manifesto contains only limited commitments in this area. If inadequate housing support is a major cause of homelessness, wider reform of housing benefit and Local Housing Allowance would also be required.
The same applies to Housing First, a model Burnham strongly supports. Labour has not committed to a national Housing First programme, despite evidence of success in Greater Manchester.
This is the central tension in Burnham’s housing record. His defence of his mayoral performance is that deeper structural reforms are needed. But if that is true, then Labour’s current plans may not go far enough. If it is not true, critics are entitled to ask why Greater Manchester has not made greater progress.
Either way, Burnham’s own arguments point to a conclusion: solving Britain’s housing crisis will require more than new powers and planning reforms. It will require a much larger commitment to affordable homes, homelessness prevention and long-term investment than any major party has yet fully embraced.
* Iain Donaldson is the treasurer of the Rochdale Liberal Democrats.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Val Doonican: Elusive Butterfly
Reform adopt the Trump agenda on elections
Rhodri Morgan statue unveiled in Cardiff
The Wealth Tax is a Progressive Fallacy
Why don't people use trains more?
Russell
Jana
Paul Walter
Peter Martin
5 Comments
I think Iain makes an interesting challenge, but we are not in a position to judge Labour nationally.
1 – We cannot expect to see “change” work through in less than 2 years at a minimum, or more likely 4 year to 15 years. In this Government for example, the Renters Rights Bill only came properly into force in May 2026, and other aspects (eg National Landlord Register) are still working through.
2 – There’s no money. For anything.
In my district I have bushes growing out of pedestrian crossings, and apparently zebra crossings outside primary schools on major 10-12k AADT roads, which cannot afford to be maintained.
By the same token I recently discovered a pedestrian crossing 100m from my very good District Hospital where the central chicane is so narrow that many wheelchairs and mobility scooter users are forced to cross in the junction. As far as I can, it has been like that since the 1980s – certainly since before Google Streetview started in 2008.
This has to do with Local Government losing much of its funding (half in real terms?) since 2010, and statutory services now being nearly everything.
If we want to “reform” this, that, or the other, we need to explain what we propose, and how it will be funded.
One thing to note is that if I have it correctly Manchester already has extra – and perhaps disproportionate – funding, in that it is one of the 2 places in the country (London is the other) able to retain 100% of locally raised Business Rates.
Matt, I think my article actually agrees with parts of what you are saying. In particular, I accept that housing policy operates over long timescales and that local government funding constraints are real. My argument was not that Labour should already have solved the housing crisis nationally, but that there is a gap between Andy Burnham’s diagnosis of the problem and the policies contained in Labour’s 2024 manifesto.
If Burnham is right that homelessness is driven by shortages of social housing, inadequate housing support and the need for Housing First, then planning reform and devolution alone may not be sufficient. That was the central point.
On business rates, Greater Manchester’s settlement is not identical to London’s. GM’s 100% retention deal was linked to devolution and allows growth to be retained locally after an initial equalisation process that adjusts for differing tax bases, whereas London’s arrangements developed through a different pooling model. Greater Manchester has retained substantial growth revenues that can be reinvested locally, generating almost £100m of additional benefit in 2025/26 alone.
That ability to recycle growth into further investment may well be one reason Greater Manchester has become one of the fastest-growing combined authority economies in the UK, though it is likely only one factor among several, alongside devolution, infrastructure investment and strong private-sector growth.
There is little sign that Labour’s much-vaunted 1.5 million homes programme during the current Parliament is going to come to fruition, even with the planning restrictions changed. Actual starts/completions during the first two years have been numerically disappointing, which leaves them with a need to average well over 400,000 in each of the next three years if they aim to fulfill their promise. Major housing contractors say it can’t be done. Even if the finance was found, there aren’t enough of the skilled artisans (bricklayers, plumbers, electricians, etc) yet trained or under training to actually carry out the building programmes on this scale. Also there remain a lot of nimbys who will resolutely oppose their own towns and villages growing significantly, with the Environment Agency’s planned New Towns Programme already being cut back..
I gather existing Lib Dem policy is to build “ten new garden cities”.
It would be helpful if the party could identify and specify where these ten new garden cities will be and what the local attitude would be to this.
Iain
Thank-you for your comment, and the extra detail !
I know Manchester reasonably well – I live on the dry side of the Pennines and have had a habit of visiting a friend who moved over there for retirement for a half day on cycles once a year.
My beat is active travel, and the last one was we went to look at some of the mobility routes around the new RHS with its 120 Sheffield Stands. We went to look at the highly dangerous “Mobility Aid Kerplunk” enforced on disabled and elderly people using a footpath to the Bridgwater centre at Woodland Grange by a 4-ply chicane, making visits difficult or impossible, because the local council failed to follow national guidance.
David
I don’t see that happening, as it will activate Nimbyland.