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.