‘Number 10 North’ is no more than a gimmick
Number 10 North has been designed to attract headlines without having been put under any real scrutiny, writes Eliot Wilson
Last week, before he travelled to London to swear the Oath of Allegiance and take his seat as the newest Member of the House of Commons, Andy Burnham gave a speech at the People’s History Museum in Manchester. The venue was no accident: the People’s History Museum grandly bills itself as the “national museum of democracy”, and declares that it is “about creating a fairer world” and “committed to standing in solidarity with people who face persecution and discrimination”.
This coincided perfectly with the tenor of Burnham’s speech in which he set out his big idea, devolution.
“Westminster,” he told his audience, “hadn’t been working for people and it hasn’t been working for a very long time. In fact, it is broken. And, as a result, the country isn’t where it should be. It is stuck in a rut.” To address this decay, he wants to devolve power from Whitehall and Westminster to lower levels of governance which will be more collaborative and in touch with voters.
Listening to Burnham’s speech, there was an air of Harold Macmillian’s put-down of the bright-eyed and bushy-tailed Liberals in 1961: he offered a mixture of sound and original ideas. Unfortunately none of the sound ideas was original and none of the original ideas was sound.
One proposal stood out. This programme of decentralisation will be overseen by the Prime Minister’s office “in extended operation based here in Manchester”. This “No 10 North”, as it is being billed, will serve as a base for the Prime Minister who, according to rumour, could spend two days a week in the North. It will also likely be the domain of Burnham’s deputy chief of staff responsible for devolution, Caroline Simpson. She has been chief executive of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority since 2024 and is a key ally of the former Mayor.
Burnham emphasised the importance of this new unit, so we should pay attention: “The job of No 10 North will be to make power flow into the Midlands, into the South West, into the East of England and, yes, into London as I said before, as much as the North East, Yorkshire & the Humber and here in the North West. Now get this – No 10 North will be the nerve centre for a rewired Britain. It will be the conduit through which we redistribute power and resources across the UK. It will coordinate all parts of government, at national and local level, to agree a long-term economic strategy and help all places set new growth ambitions.”
What does ‘Number 10 North’ mean?
It is emblematic of politicians that Burnham can say a great deal yet still leave many questions unanswered. We don’t know precisely where No 10 North will be nor how many people will work there, both of which will be vital details in terms of logistics and security. The Prime Minister’s Office cannot just occupy a corner of a Wework or annex the local Costa.
What does it mean when Burnham says it will be a “nerve centre” and a “conduit”, which are two rather different things? In functional terms, how will No 10 North “coordinate all parts of government… to agree a long-term economic strategy?” Is that not the role of Cabinet and its system of committees? Will No 10 North simply rely on the ultimate backstop of Burnham’s authority as Prime Minister? Will her departments also establish a footprint in Manchester to leverage physical proximity?
No 10 North feels like a gimmick, a gift from Burnham to the city he has overseen for almost a decade rather than a logical exercise in administration. Many government departments have “campuses” outside London, perhaps most notably the Darlington Economic Campus which acts as a second base for HM Treasury but has officials from six other departments. But location and logistics still matter: some ambitious civil servants will be reluctant to relocate to Manchester, especially given that Burnham’s tenure beyond the next election is very far from certain.
There is a question of size. The Prime Minister’s Office is only around 250 people, some of whom are employed to maintain the building itself. How many will be in No 10 North? 50? If the PM is working there – though I don’t think Burnham only being in London on Tuesdays and Wednesdays is a practical proposition – will officials dealing with all the other aspects of his work, like the national security adviser and the cabinet secretary, go with him, or remain in London?
The real question is this: what is Burnham trying to do, and will the creation of No 10 North achieve it? If he is trying to rebalance the economy, to “level up” in Boris Johnson terms, why should a unit in Manchester be any more effective in assisting economic development in Dorset or East Anglia or even Lincolnshire? If he is attempting to create an alternative source of policy advice to challenge the Treasury’s grip, why must it be outside London, away from other departments, away from Parliament, from think tanks?
This feels like an idea sketched out to attract headlines without having been put under any real scrutiny. It is impossible to say it will not work, but there seems no compelling reason to think it will be anything but a gesture which brings with it logistical, technical and administrative headaches. There is a reason that royal courts began to stay in fixed locations 500 years ago. A peripatetic Burnham reversing that trend to become a Stone Roses-loving Plantagenet monarch may buy him some media attention, but making No 10 North a reality and a success may prove a tall order.
Eliot Wilson is a writer and historian; he is a senior fellow for national security at the Coalition for Global Prosperity and a contributing editor at Defence on the Brink