Labour MPs Urge Burnham to Lead UK Reindustrialisation

Published: 26 October 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online

More than 90 Labour MPs have urged Prime Minister Andy Burnham to take direct control of the government’s reindustrialisation programme from a new political centre in Manchester, warning that the effort could fail unless ministers overcome weaknesses within Whitehall and rebuild the state’s ability to understand and support British industry.

The MPs argue that Britain cannot achieve the government’s ambition of delivering “good growth in every postcode” without a much more focused strategy for rebuilding manufacturing capacity in areas that have experienced decades of industrial decline. They believe the programme should be driven from No 10 North, the prime minister’s Manchester-based outpost, rather than being left primarily to the traditional machinery of central government.

The intervention comes as the Labour government prepares for a major budget and seeks to establish industrial renewal as a central part of its economic agenda. Chancellor John Healey is due to deliver his first budget on Wednesday and has already promised what he described as a “new age of industrialisation”, placing manufacturing, employment and long-term economic resilience at the centre of Labour’s growth ambitions.

The parliamentary group supporting the proposal says the scale of the challenge requires a fundamental change in how government approaches industrial policy. According to its briefing paper, decades of deindustrialisation and deregulation have weakened the state’s institutional knowledge of the economy and reduced its ability to make effective long-term decisions.

The MPs argue that government departments have become slower and less capable of understanding the specific needs of businesses and industrial communities. They warn that this institutional weakness could undermine the government’s attempt to revive manufacturing unless it is addressed at the highest political level.

The group is calling for a new Reindustrialisation Act that would establish clear targets for rebuilding manufacturing capacity and creating jobs. Ministers would then be expected to report against those objectives, giving Parliament a mechanism for monitoring whether the government’s industrial ambitions were translating into measurable economic results.

The proposal reflects a broader argument that reindustrialisation cannot be achieved simply through general economic growth. The MPs believe government policy must deliberately direct investment, skills, procurement and infrastructure towards communities where industrial employment has declined and where new economic opportunities are most needed.

They want Burnham to give responsibility for overseeing the programme to Louise Haigh, the first secretary, and to locate the work within No 10 North in Manchester. The outpost was established by Burnham in July and has already taken on some responsibility for economic growth policy.

Supporters believe the Manchester base could provide a different perspective from Whitehall and strengthen the government’s ability to connect national economic policy with the needs of regions outside London and the south-east.

Andy MacNae, the MP for Rossendale and Darwen who chairs the parliamentary group, said he had no doubt about Burnham’s or Healey’s commitment to the industrial agenda. His concern, he argued, was that government institutions remained influenced by an economic model that tended to prioritise areas that were already performing strongly.

MacNae said there was a form of inertia within government, the civil service and established economic thinking that continued to view growth primarily through the success of existing cities. Reindustrialisation, he argued, required a different approach focused on creating jobs in communities that had suffered from industrial decline.

For many Labour MPs representing former manufacturing and mining areas, that distinction is crucial. The political case for reindustrialisation is closely linked to the government’s promise to spread economic opportunity beyond the most prosperous parts of the country.

The MPs also argue that industrial policy should be understood as a matter of national resilience. Manufacturing capacity is not only about employment and economic output, they say, but also about ensuring that Britain can produce essential goods and maintain strategic capabilities during periods of international instability.

MacNae pointed to the government’s decision to nationalise British Steel as an example of the type of intervention that could form part of a broader industrial strategy. He argued that rebuilding industrial capacity would require coordinated policies across government, including procurement, education and investment.

The National Wealth Fund is another institution the MPs want to transform. They propose turning the arm’s-length investment body into a Reindustrialisation Development Corporation whose principal responsibility would be providing capital to businesses involved in rebuilding British industrial capacity.

Such a change would represent a significant shift in the role of public investment. Rather than focusing primarily on supporting promising companies and projects across the economy, the proposed institution would have a more targeted mandate to rebuild strategic industries and manufacturing supply chains.

The proposal reflects growing concern among policymakers that private investment alone may not be sufficient to reverse decades of industrial decline. Large-scale manufacturing projects often require substantial capital, long planning periods and coordinated infrastructure, while the benefits may take years to emerge.

The Labour MPs believe the state therefore needs to play a more active role in identifying strategic industries, supporting businesses and creating the conditions necessary for long-term investment.

Steve Yemm, the Labour MP for Mansfield, a former mining constituency, said countries around the world were already pursuing reindustrialisation while some officials in Whitehall continued to regard industrial policy as an outdated concept.

He argued that the prime minister needed to give the programme his full backing and challenge what he described as outdated assumptions about the role of government in supporting industry.

The argument is particularly relevant to constituencies such as Mansfield, where the decline of traditional industries has left a long-term economic and social legacy. For communities that once depended heavily on mining and manufacturing, the promise of new industrial jobs carries implications that go beyond economic statistics.

Lorraine Beavers, the Labour MP for Blackpool North and Fleetwood, also backed the idea, saying reindustrialisation could provide significant opportunities for constituencies such as hers. However, she warned that her experience as a relatively new MP had taught her that Whitehall often failed to act unless political pressure was applied directly.

Her comments underline the central criticism made by the parliamentary group: that ambitious policy announcements can struggle to become reality unless responsibility is clearly assigned and ministers are held accountable for delivery.

The government already has an industrial strategy covering several sectors considered to have significant growth potential. Labour previously identified advanced manufacturing, clean energy and defence among the industries where Britain could expand its productive capacity and create new employment.

The challenge now is to turn that broad strategy into practical projects and investment decisions capable of transforming local economies.

Burnham has made regional economic development a central element of his political agenda, repeatedly promising that growth should be visible across the country rather than concentrated in a small number of prosperous locations. Reindustrialisation could therefore become an important test of whether his government can translate that political promise into measurable results.

The approach advocated by the MPs would place the prime minister and his closest ministers at the centre of the effort, while giving No 10 North a more substantial role in coordinating policy. Supporters argue that such a structure could prevent industrial policy from becoming fragmented across different departments.

However, the programme also faces substantial practical challenges. Rebuilding manufacturing capacity requires investment in infrastructure, energy, transport, research, education and workforce skills. It also requires businesses to believe that government policy will remain stable over many years rather than changing with each political cycle.

Labour’s emphasis on apprenticeships and technical skills is therefore likely to become increasingly important. Healey’s recent conference speech highlighted the importance of good jobs and opportunities for younger people, with an apprentice involved in constructing a new Mersey ferry used as an example of the type of industrial future the government wants to promote.

The wider economic objective is to create a stronger productive base for Britain, reducing dependence on imported goods and increasing the country’s ability to respond to global economic and geopolitical shocks.

For Labour, the political stakes are equally significant. A successful industrial revival could provide employment and investment in communities that have experienced long-term economic decline while strengthening the government’s claim that it can deliver growth outside traditional economic centres.

Failure, however, could reinforce criticism that government industrial strategies are long on ambition but short on implementation.

The warning from more than 90 Labour MPs is therefore both an economic and political challenge to Burnham. They are not questioning the government’s stated commitment to reindustrialisation; instead, they are demanding a stronger mechanism to ensure that commitment becomes government action.

Their message is that Britain cannot simply announce a new industrial era. It must build the institutions, investment structures, skills and political accountability required to make that transformation happen. For Burnham, the proposed role for No 10 North could become a defining test of whether his promise of broad-based growth can move from political rhetoric to lasting economic change.